Forum: Ruby on Rails canoo webtest

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
A88c84952a0aa9a4c5c157bd655c4e6d?d=identicon&s=25 Bahaw Anyone (bahaw)
on 2009-01-24 14:11
has anyone used canoo webtest to test a rails application?
appreciate the info.
Aafa8848c4b764f080b1b31a51eab73d?d=identicon&s=25 Phlip (Guest)
on 2009-01-24 17:00
(Received via mailing list)
Bahaw Anyone wrote:

> has anyone used canoo webtest to test a rails application?
> appreciate the info.

Firstly, one ANT configuration file can be longer than an entire Ruby
module. If
you go that route, you will soon encounter this phenomenon:

   http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ConfigurationHell

Next, canoo hits a web server to test. This is bizarrely inefficient if
most GUI
testing should happen directly to the XHTML that a server would have
served.
Rails "functional" tests call actions in controllers, and returns their
contents
as strings for parse-testing. This provides 95% of the coverage needed.

The remaining coverage happens in live JavaScript. That is where we need
in-browser testing, such as Watir, Selenium, or Firewatir.

Tests that run a webserver, but then don't run a web browser, are the
admission
of defeat before you start. They neglect simply generating a page and
not
serving it.

--
   Phlip
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.