Comments on: Paparrazzi testing http://blog.agilephp.com/2007/10/09/paparrazzi-testing/ Dagfinn Reiersøl on PHP, agile development, Ruby and other addictive substances Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:17:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: dagfinn http://blog.agilephp.com/2007/10/09/paparrazzi-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-32 dagfinn Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:15:06 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=1347#comment-32 First: the spam filter managed to mark all of the three real comments as spam. I'll have to watch it more carefully. About JavaScript and Selenium: If you have to test everything together and you have a lot of JavaScript, you do need something like Selenium -- or manual testing. But it's a good idea in any case to test the JavaScript in isolation. I've tested JavaScript from the command line using Ecmaunit. But I still haven't found a way to get a DOM implementation working from those tests. First: the spam filter managed to mark all of the three real comments as spam. I’ll have to watch it more carefully.

About JavaScript and Selenium: If you have to test everything together and you have a lot of JavaScript, you do need something like Selenium — or manual testing. But it’s a good idea in any case to test the JavaScript in isolation. I’ve tested JavaScript from the command line using Ecmaunit. But I still haven’t found a way to get a DOM implementation working from those tests.

]]> By: Santosj http://blog.agilephp.com/2007/10/09/paparrazzi-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Santosj Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:43:31 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=1347#comment-29 I came to the same conclusion based on the requirements for acceptance testing of a web application. The choice of Selenium, while I still plan on writing code that uses it, adds more complexity to running the tests, than SimpleTest web browser. When all you need to know is that Field A and/or ID B exists, you don't need to run that through a real browser. A normal user can do that just fine. A normal user will tell you exactly what went wrong in their browser and their version. I came to the same conclusion based on the requirements for acceptance testing of a web application. The choice of Selenium, while I still plan on writing code that uses it, adds more complexity to running the tests, than SimpleTest web browser. When all you need to know is that Field A and/or ID B exists, you don’t need to run that through a real browser.

A normal user can do that just fine. A normal user will tell you exactly what went wrong in their browser and their version.

]]> By: Rob... http://blog.agilephp.com/2007/10/09/paparrazzi-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Rob... Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:54:30 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=1347#comment-31 You've hit the nail on the head with Selenium. It is soooo slow! You’ve hit the nail on the head with Selenium. It is soooo slow!

]]> By: Tobias Struckmeier http://blog.agilephp.com/2007/10/09/paparrazzi-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Tobias Struckmeier Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:56:04 +0000 http://localhost/wordpress/?p=1347#comment-30 When you dont test in a real browser, you dont get the browser specific and JavaScript errors. Therefore starting a real browser makes sense. And how do you create the tests then? I like that recording approach of selenium. When you dont test in a real browser, you dont get the browser specific and JavaScript errors.
Therefore starting a real browser makes sense. And how do you create the tests then? I like that recording approach of selenium.

]]>