ripple-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gord Tanner <gtan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Test Coverage Tooling in Ripple
Date Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:18:11 GMT
I have been wanting code coverage forever

+1


On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:

> Cool stuff Brent!
>
> +1
>
> On 1/4/13 10:46 AM, "Dan Silivestru" <dan.silivestru@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm 100% behind having some sort of code coverage solution in place.
> >Simply
> >counting the number of assertions we have doesn't give us as much
> >confidence as I would like to have.
> >
> >I do somewhat disagree that the node tests are more important the the
> >browser tests. I would at a minimum put them on par since Ripple does run
> >in the browser :-) But I think starting with code coverage for node only
> >is
> >a very good first step.
> >
> >So... long way of me saying... +1  :)
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Brent Lintner
> ><brent.lintner@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> So, I have been using a (recently) new project called CoverJS in one of
> >>my
> >> personal (side projects), and I am finding it really useful and easy to
> >> use/setup when it comes to test code coverage in JS.
> >>
> >> https://npmjs.org/package/coverjs
> >>
> >> My proposal is to add support for test code coverage to Ripple (as test
> >> coverage is something I've really wanted to see go into the development
> >> workflow of Ripple). It is still in some early stages, but I think it
> >>would
> >> be a great project to adopt (even initially) as the code coverage
> >>tooling
> >> for this project. If it it needs to be changed, it should not be too
> >> difficult to rip out or replace, and this does not affect the normal
> >>way of
> >> running tests.
> >>
> >> I.e. Check it out in my fork (first and only commit) -->
> >> https://github.com/brentlintner/Ripple-UI/tree/test.cov
> >>
> >> Since I had already done the setup in my side project, it was quite
> >>easy to
> >> get it working in Ripple (although I had to wait to submit it until an
> >> upstream bug was fixed in CoverJS). The only pitfall here is it
> >>currently
> >> only works when running the tests with the nodejs runner (vs the browser
> >> based test runner, which, IMO is less primary than the node runner,
> >> anyways). However, it is still very useful when testing (even after
> >>using
> >> it a few times).
> >>
> >> Thoughts? Yay/Nay?
> >>
> >> I was hoping to issue a Pull Request soon (if it is a welcomed idea).
> >>:-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Brent
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Dan Silivestru
> >+1 (519) 589-3624
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message