[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #5290 [Quality Assurance and Testing]: Collect+write test pages for JavaScript hooks
#5290: Collect+write test pages for JavaScript hooks
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Reporter: mikeperry | Owner: cypherpunks
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: TorBrowserBundle 2.3.x-stable
Component: Quality Assurance and Testing | Version:
Keywords: MikePerry201208 | Parent: #5292
Points: | Actualpoints:
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Comment(by gk):
Replying to [comment:11 mikeperry]:
> gk: this is awesome. I am wondering two things: First, what made you
pick mozmill over mochitest or xpcshell? Or for that matter, anything else
out of https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mozilla_automated_testing?
Well, the overall goal I had in mind was to have just one testing
framework for everything reachable by JavaScript. That includes add-on
testing (Torbutton AND Torbirdy) and Torbrowser testing. Add-on testing
(functionality and UI) is not possible with xpcshell and Mochitest is
supposed to be a browser-based tool which therefore does not seem fit to
the Torbirdy requirement (you'll find the browser-based argument and other
interesting points about mochitest vs. mozmill here:
https://groups.google.com/group/mozmill-
dev/browse_thread/thread/c7170970800f6e79/9a4c8721310412ee?hide_quotes=no).
Looking at the other available tools and the above mentioned requirements
made me believe as well we should give Mozmill a try. Sure it is no catch-
all, we may need compiled-code tests but having just to types of tests to
maintain and develop is much, much easier than half a dozen types. That
said, I am open for (even) better solutions, though.
> Second, what do you propose we should do with this zip? Does Firefox
have Makefile rules for mozmill we should use?
It does not have those yet. The current tests are in a spearate repo,
http://hg.mozilla.org/qa/mozmill-tests but that is mainly due to not using
Mozmill as a unit/whitebox testing tool (which it could be, though) as far
as I understand it. Therefore, Mozmill itself is not included in the main
tree (mozilla-central) but must be installed separately to run the tests.
> If Makefiles are a poor plan, should we create a new testing repo for
stuff like this?
I don't think Makefiles are a poor plan. It all depends on how the tests
shall be used or better how the testing infrastructure should look like in
the end, a thing that should probably discussed somewhere else with a
wider audience than this bug as it is off topic and more important than
the particular tests I attached. That said, if we want to start with some
sort of blackbox/greybox tests like the ones I inlcuded, an own repo and
some tweaks to Torbutton (the modal dialog on start-up) should be enough
to get the tests integrated smoothly into the Torbutton/Torbrowser
development workflow, I guess.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5290#comment:12>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs