Confirmed users
1,136
edits
Talk:AMO:Developers/JavaScriptTesting: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:AMO:Developers/JavaScriptTesting (view source)
Revision as of 18:28, 18 November 2010
, 18 November 2010no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== re: testing Ajax == | == re: testing Ajax == | ||
Agreed! I really don't think any test should make an actual Ajax request because that would introduce the dependency of a server and all of a sudden we would be testing the full stack. Selenium is better for that and QA is already working with the full stack. I do, however, feel there are diminishing returns when testing small, isolated units of JavaScript, especially with the patterns that are common to jQuery. The bulk of functionality in AMO is somewhere in the realm of DOM <-> behavior <-> server data. So when I wrote Ajax I meant mock Ajax, as in no server. This keeps the tests running fast yet puts them at a mid tier integration level that will produce helpful feedback. --[[User:Kumar303|Kumar303]] 08:25, 16 November 2010 (PST) | Agreed! I really don't think any test should make an actual Ajax request because that would introduce the dependency of a server and all of a sudden we would be testing the full stack. Selenium is better for that and QA is already working with the full stack. I do, however, feel there are diminishing returns when testing small, isolated units of JavaScript, especially with the patterns that are common to jQuery. The bulk of functionality in AMO is somewhere in the realm of DOM <-> behavior <-> server data. So when I wrote Ajax I meant mock Ajax, as in no server. This keeps the tests running fast yet puts them at a mid tier integration level that will produce helpful feedback. --[[User:Kumar303|Kumar303]] 08:25, 16 November 2010 (PST) | ||
== nodeunit == | |||
+1 for being able to use the require statement. [[User:Aking|Aking]] 10:28, 18 November 2010 (PST) | |||