Hello,
While I agree on that increasing coverage is the most important right now, I
would also like that when newcomers read different test cases they find similar
patterns expressed the same way so that the framework is easy to learn.
Anyway, since this isn't the top priority, we can look into these things later.
Best regards,
Javier
Ara Pulido wrote:
> Hello Javier,
>
> Although your comment is valuable, my opinion is that we should be
> focusing on adding coverage to mago, rather than keeping adding stuff to
> the framework itself.
>
> Do you see a real benefit that would worth the effort?
>
> Cheers,
> Ara.
>
> On 22/09/09 11:19, Javier Collado wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> While looking at a merge proposal, I saw a pattern that was repeated
>> multiple times:
>>
>> if<condition>:
>> raise AssertionError,<comment>
>>
>> I understand that the use of "assert" statement in a testing library is
>> discouraged since it isn't executed when optimizations are activated
>> so the
>> if/raise lines here are completely fine.
>>
>> However, I was thinking that as many testing libraries provide their own
>> assertion methods, perhaps mago TestSuite base class should do it
>> also. Do you
>> agree on this? Do you think is there any other behaviour that would be
>> worth to add?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Javier
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> http://live.gnome.org/DesktopTesting
>> desktop-testing-list mailing list
>> desktop-testing-list gnome org
>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-testing-list
>>
>
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature