On 03 Jun 2014, at 14:50, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 6/3/14, 6:22 AM, Mike de Boer wrote: >> Their lack of modularity costs us flexibility in adopting and/ or promoting >> TDD development. > > Mike, I'm very curious about this part. Do you have a link offhand to a more > detailed explanation of the issues here?
Nope, you got me there - I generalised too easily. This statement is based on personal experience, not science. > > Note that none of us think Mochitest is perfect by any means. And I think we > all agree (or at least I agree!) that both the behavior an the names of the > old xpcshell test functions is terrible. > > I do think we should be very intentional about adopting something new, both > in terms of semantics (mochitest is() using == is a mistake we should not > duplicate in the short-name comparison function in the new setup) and in > terms of naming. That doesn't mean we shouldn't adopt it, but we should aim > to fix the known problems when we do so, because it's unlikely that we'll get > a second chance to change around the names to address them. I’d say that now that we’ve spliced it all out to a separate module, we’re more free to change things and make amendments. I don’t think it’s too late to change anything. I agree that `is()` paired with `==` was ill-advised, so now we have `equal()` and `strictEqual()` as well. To preserve backward compat, all the old function names of XPCShell assertions do still work. I was planning to do the same with Mochi. Mike. > > -Boris > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
