[WebODF] RFC: Move to a standard JS test framework (e.g., jasmine)

[Jos van den Oever]

On 09/15/2014 04:45 AM, Philip Peitsch wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> In an effort to ease some of the cross-browser development aspects,
> I’m spending some time getting the karma test runner work that Jos
> started a while ago functional again.
> 
> This migration is somewhat trickier than it should be, mainly
> because WebODF has a completely custom test framework
> (core.UnitTester).
> 
> This means that: * all karma integration must be written from
> scratch * it is difficult to run individual tests from karma (very
> handy when developing from WebStorm) * text reporting from karma is
> *very* messy * missing shiny features from other test frameworks
> :'(
> 
> I was wondering if anyone would have complaints about ripping out
> the custom framework and replacing with an existing, widely used
> one (e.g., Jasmine, 
> http://jasmine.github.io/2.0/introduction.html)?
> 
> The only reason I suggest Jasmine is that I'm familiar with it's
> features from other projects I work on.
> 
> Key benefits of switching to Jasmine (probably apply to other
> frameworks too!): * already has integration for karma via the
> karma-jasmine plugin * individual tests can be ignored or run
> directly from any IDE with karma support * has a host of existing
> addins (e.g., better HTML reporters) which means we can easily
> improve the usability of the test results from the browser as well
> as in the qtjsruntimetests (which currently spit out raw html in
> the console :-/) * good documentation * support for async tests *
> easier fixture creation
> 
> From what I can tell, everything implemented in the existing custom
> test framework is supported (or supportable without much work) in
> jasmine without too much work.
> 
> I'm happy to do the work... just wanted to get wider approval
> before spending time on such a patch :-).
> 
> So… any objections?

I know and like Jasmine and have used it a few times, see e.g. [1]. It
did not yet exist (at least not in my mind) when WebODF started
getting unit tests.

A few issues that will arise when making this move:

1) Jasmine has no closure compiler typing. An addition to the
externs.js should suffice. Jasmine is mainly calls nested "function ()
{ ... }" calls. The expect(), toBe() etc calls can be CCed.

2) Jasmine is a behaviour driven testing method. Each test results in
natural language statement that is confirmed of disproved by a test.
So porting is not just code porting but also coming up with nice
descriptions. This requires some creative thinking and will really
improve the readability of the code.

3) In some places tests are generated from xml files. I dont know if
Jasmine can handle that.

So all in all: I'm all for it.
Jasmine is small and light enough to simply include in our repository.

Cheers,
Jos

[1] https://github.com/vandenoever/baredom