Hi Alex,
Well I have to admit that Mustella is a thing I always tried avoiding as I
never really managed to wrap my head around it. Just had a look at the FlexJS
version and it seems to be a copy of (parts) of Mustella from the Flex SDK. At
least from a few minutes of looking at the code I couldn’t really understand
the basic concepts of the tests.
I can see some part which seems to be FlexJS code as well as some Java code in
a package “marmotinni” which is probably somehow related to the neighbor
directory “marmotinni”. I couldn’t really see any documentation or
code-comments that would explain things. And having a look at the commit
history for both directories, It’s only you contributing to this at all (except
the initial commit of the marmotinni directory, which was from eric). Also
having a look at the history of the Flex SDK, there seems to be a similar
picture. It’s a very elite group of people doing commits there and usually
related to tweaking things instead of really writing tests.
If I would have to decide, I would definitely go the Junit + Selenium path the
way I set it up (But doesn’t have to be that way as long as we stick to a more
standard way that’s integratable into the Maven build). The main reason for
this is that it’s the way - I wouldn’t say the rest of the world, but the
greater part of it – does things. It uses well established mechanisms, which
people are probably more familiar with and definitely will be able to get more
assistance, blogs, how-tos, a.s.o. for. I know that setting up the initial
project is challenging, but I already did that for us. Now all we would need to
do in order to add new tests, is write a simple Junit test and eventually add a
dependency to a new example project.
Another thing I don’t quite like with Mustella, the way I have seen it with the
old SDK, is that it doesn’t seem to be deterministic. If I need to loop tests
several times in order for them to run, I can’t trust the tool as a proper test
tool.
I would definitely vote for going down the more standard path than the
proprietary Adobe path for testing. Considering that we don’t really have more
than a proof of concept of a test-suite, I don’t think we would be throwing
away much.
Chris
Am 09.01.17, 06:37 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>:
Did you look into how Mustella/Marmotinni works? That is also an attempt
to use Selenium.
-Alex
On 1/8/17, 11:23 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>After noticing that some examples seem to compile fine, but don’t
>actually work, I decided to invest a day in building integration tests to
>test the examples in a browser (currently Firefox).
>As this requires the “Geckodriver” to be installed, I made the tests auto
>activate themselves as soon as the “webdriver.gecko.driver“ property is
>set to the path of the geckodriver executable.
>
>What happens is:
>
>- The tests are compiled
>
>- A Tomcat8 is setup and started
>
>- the HelloWorld example is deployed
>
>- The Selenium JUnit Tests are run
>
>- The tomcat is shutdown
>
>Please have a look at this, if you think this is a valid path, then I
>would start writing some test-cases that basically test some of our
>examples.
>
>Get geckodriver from here: https://github.com/mozilla/geckodriver/releases
>I needed to update my Firefox to the latest version in order for the
>tests to run.
>
>Chris
