I will stay out of this discussion but I do agree Gordon that taking a
more "unit" approach to functional testing would create a stronger
foundation for reaching levels of stability with the compiler as a
standalone compiler that uses a specific dialect.
This way we could more look at fixing the existing framework based on
the stricter use of the new compiler.
But again, I will stay out until the heavy weights decide and point
the direction.
Mike
Quoting Gordon Smith <gosm...@adobe.com>:
I strongly prefer not to use Mustella for functional tests of
Falcon. Doing so would cause a chicken-and-egg issue of whether
Falcon can compile Mustella's test language.
I plan to have EXTREMELY simple functional tests. For example, the
functional test for the <int> tag should only require that Falcon
understand a document tag (<Sprite>), the <Declararations> tag, and
the <int> tag.
- Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:34 AM
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [FALCON] Functional Testing
On 11/14/12 10:29 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote:
Ok so we have something basically setup like SWC tests.
I will be honest, I have NO IDEA how to do;
- run the SWF in Flash Player
- get the trace output, and check it
If you would set that stuff up sometime and give me a template, I'll
get the idea.
That's what Mustella does. I haven't looked at these functional
tests, but if the entry point is MXMLC and the output is a runnable
SWF, then I would think we could just use Mustella for functional
tests? It would also be a way to cross check what the old MXMLC does.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
--
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blog.teotigraphix.com
