[forge-dev] XmlUnit on Scaffold test cases
dan.j.allen at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 01:12:58 EDT 2012
Let's not miss the original point that George makes, which is that
comparing the structure may make less fragile tests than comparing the raw
HTML. I tend to agree, unless there is something very important about
maintaining the whitespace. Even then, a structure comparison tool should
be able to accommodate that rule.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Lincoln Baxter, III <
lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I'm not sure there's a great way around this aside from a more
> black-box functional approach, but even that might not be getting as
> fine-grained as some of these tests need to be. With greater test coverage,
> I think it could be replaced, however.
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Richard Kennard <
> richard at kennardconsulting.com> wrote:
>> +1 for this.
>> However note there are different levels of tests. Classes like
>> FacesScaffoldScenarioTest are only meant to test very small, very specific
>> things. Basically
>> regression testing. Classes like FacesScaffoldWeatherTest are also small
>> and specific.
>> The real testing is done using Arquillian (like
>> FacesScaffoldPetClinicClient and FacesScaffoldShoppingClient). Because
>> whilst your point about 'if you
>> place a line break in a generated XHTML... it breaks the whole test' is
>> very valid, even with XmlUnit you are vulnerable to 'if you place an extra
>> element in a generated XHTML... it breaks the whole test'.
>> Testing through Arquillian is the only way to be really sure the
>> generated app actually works, IMHO. Because you are testing it the way the
>> user would.
>> However, definitely +1 for using XmlUnit, as far as that goes.
>> On 12/06/2012 12:09 PM, George Gastaldi wrote:
>> > Hello all,
>> > I noticed that most of our scaffold unit tests are kinda hard to
>> > maintain. specially because they compare XHTML as strings, instead of
>> > the structure as a whole.
>> > This implies that if you place a line break in a generated XHTML for
>> > example, it breaks the whole test as well.
>> > What about if we refactor these tests to use XmlUnit instead ?
>> > (http://xmlunit.sourceforge.net/)
>> > This way we could compare the structure without the ugly plain string
>> > comparison, WDYT ?
>> > Regards,,
>> > George Gastaldi
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > forge-dev mailing list
>> > forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>> forge-dev mailing list
>> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> "Simpler is better."
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the forge-dev