[Nitro] Test-based development

Rob Pitt rob at motionpath.com
Wed Feb 15 10:23:56 EST 2006

I prefer the "fake sending" of forms and such as you can easily read
session, request, etc to see if everything went as it should. No doubt
mechanize could be hacked to do this, but I do not see the detraction of
only sending POST data as a method (Eduardo mentioned it's not taking
into account the real page) because you can visually very easily see if
a page doesn't look like it should and would quickly notice incorrectly
named fields (this isn't an error I've made before).

On the other hand, it would be possible to create a "supervisor" process
that managed both the app and mechanize or a thread within the app that
ran mechanized on itself. I do not see there is a great benefit
considering the extra complexity, it's a small benefit but is it worth
the extra trouble to implement it like this?

Would like more opinions here.

On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 13:56 +0100, Kashia Buch wrote:
> Hi,
> > Is that really like a user browsing the site?
> I don't know how Watir/Selenium/Rails works in case of testing sites, but maybe one could use WWW::Mechanize to hack some web-page testing/traversing utility together.
> Mechanize works with the html, no "fake sending" of forms, you "fill 'em" like you normally would.
> http://www.ntecs.de/blog/Blog/WWW-Mechanize.rdoc
> and some additional Info for working with it:
> http://www.adras.com/web-testing-with-Ruby.t37-48-1.html
> http://www.zenspider.com/pipermail/ruby/2005-July/002068.html
> There doesn't seem so much information about it at all, but someone might be interested :)
> Kash

More information about the Nitro-general mailing list