incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Maj <>
Subject Re: Callback-test a.k.a. mobile spec
Date Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:50:33 GMT
In a sense, yeah... The pure unit test stuff for the actual JS API can be
housed within the -js repo. I think Gord from RIM had the idea to have
really simple Jasmine tests in there for basic smoke tests.

However I look at callback-test / mobile-spec as more of an end-to-end
test. The qunit tests prod the JS API which can also invoke native code,
so we have a more complete testing solution.

It's good to figure this stuff out though... Anyone else have thoughts on

On 11-12-13 11:45 AM, "Brian LeRoux" <> wrote:

>I wonder, would it not be (more) appropriate to add these as a part of
>On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Filip Maj <> wrote:
>> I'm taking a gander at the repo and trying to figure out what's what ­
>>it's changed since I last remember it :D
>> I'm figuring out what the process is for adding a new API or tweaking
>>one. Last I brought this up on the list I think Dave said "update the
>>spec, then add docs" as the process. Once that is done then I guess we
>>file issues for each implementation? If that is the case we need a new
>>component in Apache JIRA so we can track callback-test / mobile-spec
>>issues as well in that case (who can help with this?)
>> As for the repo itself, looks like we have a bunch of manual test pages
>>at the root, then we have the actual qunit tests under autotest.
>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand now we'll have to do
>>two things if we are adding a new feature or whatever to the
>>phonegap/callback/cordova API:
>>  *   Add a "manual" test for it so we can run through the motions on
>>  *   Add a qunit test if possible
>> So if, for example, we added say Web Intent support to
>>PhoneGap/Cordova/WebKeg, I would add a manual test which I could then
>>load up on my device and check it works, as well as a qunit test at
>>least checking for the existence of the proper functions and whatnot.
>> Am I getting all of this right? Anything else that needs to change for
>>this process?
>> I think the tests are a bit behind right now (a little neglected) as I
>>noticed the docs had stuff the tests did not. I want to fix that.

View raw message