couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <>
Subject Re: Futon Test Suite
Date Tue, 09 Aug 2011 08:48:13 GMT
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Robert Dionne
<> wrote:
>> Also, I've been thinking more and more about beefing up the JavaScript
>> test suite runner and moving more of our browser tests over to
>> dedicated code in those tests. If anyone's interested in hacking on
>> some C and JavaScript against an HTTP API, let me know.
> Paul,
>  Jan and I talked about this a few times and I started a branch[1] along that idea.
So far all I did was make a copy of the then current Futon tests into
> test/javascript/test  and started looking at the small handful that fail.
>   The browser tests are great (any test is good) but they have too many browser  dependent
quirks, or at least I assume that because of the pleasant surprise
> one gets when they all run. So I think the goal of these runner tests would be some sort
of official HTTP API suite that's part of "make check". Would you agree?
> If so I'm happy to take this on.
>   Also I've found eunit to be helpful in BigCouch and wondering how hard it would be
to support eunit in couchdb. Having tests in the modules is very good for not
> only testing but also to help with reading and understanding what the code does.
> Bob
> [1]


Exactly what I was thinking. By having our test suite have as little
code between the socket and the the test as possible we can ensure
that the tests are testing CouchDB and not some random change in the
behavior of our favorite web browser. I would definitely expect these
tests to be part of make check and hence part of the release

My current half formed thoughts are to basically split our test suite
into two halves. Tests that are in Erlang and are testing internals,
and tests that go through the HTTP interface. I love me some Erlang,
but I've not been think of an elegant way to make it easy to run lots
of HTTP tests.

As to eunit, I'm not sure. I'm really not a huge fan of it, especially
mixing implementation and test code. I know rebar can separate them,
so its at least possible to get around that. I'd like to have a
unified environment for Erlang tests though. And TAP at seems like
it'd be easier to interface with non-Erlang tooling if we ever get
around to build matrices and what not. But I'm not opposed to it on
religious grounds if that's what people want to contribute.

View raw message