couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kim Stebel (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (COUCHDB-1865) Use HTTP API examples as tests...
Date Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:17:48 GMT


Kim Stebel commented on COUCHDB-1865:

I work on the documentation for Cloudant and we already have a way to integrate testing with
the documentation. I'm afraid it uses neither of your two ideas though. The code is a number
of tests that usually work like this:

- create a new db
- set up some state (how would you do this part if you only have to documentation examples
as input?)
- call the relevant API and see whether it does what we expect
- write request and response into ReST files that can be included in the documentation.
- delete the db

The tests are written in Scala with a special branch of the "sprouch" library I wrote, which
uses Spray as the HTTP client library and ScalaTest to execute tests.

I'll be working on automatically generating larger parts of the documentation and I would
be happy to contribute this work back to CouchDB. You can currently find it at
> Use HTTP API examples as tests...
> ---------------------------------
>                 Key: COUCHDB-1865
>                 URL:
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Documentation, Test Suite
>            Reporter: Alexander Shorin
> ...or use tests as HTTP API examples. 
> First way is completely based on Sphinx ReST format: there is need to parse rst files,
extract required directives and convert them to test cases. That's a Python way to go since
it already contains package for parsing and operating with all required content.
> The second way it about using  project like [katt|] which
tests HTTP API by using human-readable files for test cases. Currently, their format is similar
to Markdown, but I think it would be a problem to upgrade it to ReST, right? This way is completely
> First way is fast and cheap, but strict to sphinx docs content. Second is a bit longer,
but doesn't binds to docs since only part of his tests will be used as base for docs.
> Which road better to go?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message