Please just keep in mind that making sure the tests run
without
windmill is a requirement.
On Mar 31, 2007, at 2:13 AM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
>>> If we can find a way to dynamically replace the
regular jsunit
>>> assertion methods with our own I think we can
do this all pretty
>>> easily.
>>>
>>
>> I still don't see the reason for this...Could you
explain?
>
> Since windmill will be responsible for running tests
and gathering
> results we'll need to override the validation methods
to call pass/
> fail in our own windmill jsunit test framework. I'm
sure we could
> find a way to hook into the jsunit module and gather
the results
> after running, but bending everything to run in
windmill will be
> more difficult than just replacing the validation
functions
> dynamically.
>
>> Well js is one of them thar dynamical language
things, so it ought
>> to be possible. Should I reassign the jsunit
related bug(s) to
>> you or to Adam?
>
> Adam should get any javascript bugs, the result reports
will be
> sent back to the windmill server over jsonrpc and at
some point
> I'll be responsible for printing and logging them, but
for the most
> part this is Adam's works and all bugs should be
assigned to him.
>
> -Mikeal
>
>
_______________________________________________
cosmo-dev mailing list
cosmo-dev lists.osafoundation.org
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-d
ev
|
