[Nitro] Test-based development

Eduardo Rocha eduardorochabr at gmail.com
Wed Feb 15 17:29:16 EST 2006


2006/2/15, Aidan Rogers <aidan at yoyo.org>:
> Lots of things to respond to in this thread, but I think overall you
> guys are talking about 2 different levels of testing.
>
> Rob is talking about unit testing the controller code; Eduardo is
> talking about functional/integration testing.  Both are valid and
> necessary forms of testing, and are not mutually exclusive.

Aidan, actually I am talking mostly about unit testing the controller,
which Rails itself calls functional test.

> For example, I recently wrote a Rails app as part of my day job, and
> wrote unit tests for the model and controllers.  One of our testers
> then did the functional/integration (pick your favourite term in this
> case - everyone interprets test types as different things on
> different days in different projects) testing which involved the
> actual browser and pointing and clicking.

In fact, this different names of testing confuses every one!
Particularly, I would call Rails controller tests as integration
tests, and Watir/Selenium functional tests. The problem with Rails
tests is that it ignores the view with the form, which can only be
tested manually or with tools like Watir/Selenium.

>
> I think it would be really useful to create an automated way to unit
> test both models and controllers.  I think it would be as valuable to
> integrate with Selenium in some way, not only to create the ability
> to functionally test Nitro apps, but also so I can evangelise Nitro
> to all the Selenium guys at ThoughtWorks - these guys are the sorts
> of people with enough community clout to start generating real press
> for Nitro.
>

My opinion here is that Selenium can stay appart from Nitro, as a
functional test tool, knowing nothing about Nitro code. Nitro test
framework could improve on Rails using the view as a way of inputing
parameters, but also not using HTTP.

> Aidan
> ---
> http://www.infurious.com
>
>
> On 16/02/2006, at 2:59 AM, Eduardo Rocha wrote:
>
> > 2006/2/15, Rob Pitt <rob at motionpath.com>:
> >> 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).
> >>
> >
> > I don't know if I understand you correctly, but I often fall into the
> > mistake of passing the controller test (in Rails) and then I get an
> > error testing in the browser, just because the form field names were
> > diferent from the test. And yet I can do visually, I think it breaks
> > the idea of TDD and automated tests.
> >
> >> 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?
> >>
> >
> > Concerning Watir/Selenium/Mechanize, my opinion is that features from
> > Mechanize are very similar to Watir/Selenium, but are run outside the
> > browser. I think this is not better or worse, because some people
> > would prefer running this kind of test before running in browser. But
> > with Mechanize you are using HTTP to test your app, which can slow
> > down test (if one is that paranoic :) and it is not "that" pure.
> >
> > In Rails, for example, instead of passing parameters directly, it
> > would be nice if we could start from the page (instead of a URL, in
> > the case of Mechanize), and we associate the form fields with values
> > (like Mechanize does, as well as Watir/Selenium).
> >
> >> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Nitro-general mailing list
> >> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nitro-general mailing list
> > Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
>




More information about the Nitro-general mailing list