Bahaw Anyone wrote:
> has anyone used canoo webtest to test a rails application?
> appreciate the info.
Firstly, one ANT configuration file can be longer than an entire Ruby module. If
you go that route, you will soon encounter this phenomenon:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ConfigurationHell
Next, canoo hits a web server to test. This is bizarrely inefficient if most GUI
testing should happen directly to the XHTML that a server would have served.
Rails "functional" tests call actions in controllers, and returns
their contents
as strings for parse-testing. This provides 95% of the coverage needed.
The remaining coverage happens in live JavaScript. That is where we need
in-browser testing, such as Watir, Selenium, or Firewatir.
Tests that run a webserver, but then don''t run a web browser, are the
admission
of defeat before you start. They neglect simply generating a page and not
serving it.
--
Phlip
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---