12:19 a.m.
George's point is well taken. The current tests could be made less fragile. In
particular, there have been a number of complaints about '\r\n versus \n'
when building on Windows/Linux. I believe these are all resolved now, but the basic
concept is sound.
Having said that, there *is* something important about testing the white space. Namely, we
are making sure the generated code is indented correctly (has
the correct number of \t's) relative to its surrounding template. The idea is that it
doesn't 'stick out' as being generated code.
Also, with respect to 'black-box versus unit tests', I don't think this should
be an either-or thing. I think we should have both.
Regards,
Richard.
On 13/06/2012 3:12 PM, Dan Allen wrote:
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.
-Dan
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Lincoln Baxter, III <lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com
<mailto:lincolnbaxter@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.
~Lincoln
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Richard Kennard <richard(a)kennardconsulting.com
<mailto:richard@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 XML
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.
Regards,
Richard.
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(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:forge-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:forge-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
--
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:forge-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
--
Dan Allen
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev