Wanted to highlight some of the issues we know have on github and get some discussion going. First up: Tests - http://github.com/camping/camping/issues#issue/15 Currently Camping doesn''t have any automated tests. At all. Now, I''m not a testing freak, but I''m not _why either, so I believe we''ll have to have *some* tests. I''m not talking about 100% unit-test coverage, but just something which lets us commit with confidence and makes it easier to make sure everything works on both 1.8 and 1.9. One idea I had: Use what we have in test/apps/ now and write WebRat-steps to make sure everything works as expected. The apps should be ran through Camping::Server, and the tests should use Net::HTTP so we test the whole stack. Anyone wants to give it a try, or have any other ideas? // Magnus Holm
Did not know about WebRat but it seems pretty compelling. I had meant to look at Mosquito (http://mosquito.rubyforge.org/) but if WebRat has a greater adoption in the Ruby community that might make more sense. On 4/12/2010 8:18 AM, Magnus Holm wrote:> Wanted to highlight some of the issues we know have on github and get > some discussion going. > > First up: Tests - http://github.com/camping/camping/issues#issue/15 > > Currently Camping doesn''t have any automated tests. At all. Now, I''m > not a testing freak, but I''m not _why either, so I believe we''ll have > to have *some* tests. I''m not talking about 100% unit-test coverage, > but just something which lets us commit with confidence and makes it > easier to make sure everything works on both 1.8 and 1.9. > > One idea I had: Use what we have in test/apps/ now and write > WebRat-steps to make sure everything works as expected. The apps > should be ran through Camping::Server, and the tests should use > Net::HTTP so we test the whole stack. > > Anyone wants to give it a try, or have any other ideas? > > > // Magnus Holm > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20100412/03cab915/attachment.html>
Mosquito tests the app from within the same process. I think it''d make more sense to have the tests run over HTTP. // Magnus Holm On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 02:00, Philippe Monnet <ruby at monnet-usa.com> wrote:> Did not know about WebRat but it seems pretty compelling. I had meant to > look at Mosquito (http://mosquito.rubyforge.org/) but if WebRat has a > greater adoption in the Ruby community that might make more sense. > > On 4/12/2010 8:18 AM, Magnus Holm wrote: > > Wanted to highlight some of the issues we know have on github and get > some discussion going. > > First up: Tests - http://github.com/camping/camping/issues#issue/15 > > Currently Camping doesn''t have any automated tests. At all. Now, I''m > not a testing freak, but I''m not _why either, so I believe we''ll have > to have *some* tests. I''m not talking about 100% unit-test coverage, > but just something which lets us commit with confidence and makes it > easier to make sure everything works on both 1.8 and 1.9. > > One idea I had: Use what we have in test/apps/ now and write > WebRat-steps to make sure everything works as expected. The apps > should be ran through Camping::Server, and the tests should use > Net::HTTP so we test the whole stack. > > Anyone wants to give it a try, or have any other ideas? > > > // Magnus Holm > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list >