ripple-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Maj <...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Test Coverage Tooling in Ripple
Date Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:10:38 GMT
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
View raw message