19 messages in com.canoo.lists.webtestRE: Re: [Webtest] [dev] source cleanu...
FromSent OnAttachments
Marc Guillemot23 Sep 2004 01:50 
Dierk Koenig23 Sep 2004 02:38 
Marc Guillemot24 Sep 2004 00:51 
Dierk Koenig24 Sep 2004 02:09 
Marc Guillemot30 Sep 2004 01:59 
Dierk Koenig11 Oct 2004 09:21 
Dierk Koenig11 Oct 2004 10:01 
Marc Guillemot12 Oct 2004 05:25 
Marc Guillemot12 Oct 2004 05:28 
dier...@mail.canoo.com12 Oct 2004 08:44 
dier...@mail.canoo.com12 Oct 2004 08:47 
Dierk Koenig13 Oct 2004 01:30 
Marc Guillemot13 Oct 2004 02:16 
Dierk Koenig13 Oct 2004 05:43 
Marc Guillemot13 Oct 2004 07:01 
Dierk Koenig13 Oct 2004 08:06 
Eric Pugh13 Oct 2004 09:28 
Dierk Koenig14 Oct 2004 00:45 
Dierk Koenig15 Oct 2004 06:41 
Subject:RE: Re: [Webtest] [dev] source cleanup: xsl document()
From:Dierk Koenig (dier@canoo.com)
Date:10/13/2004 08:06:23 AM
List:com.canoo.lists.webtest

comments inline

I've used xdoclet to document custom steps (when I was too afraid of webtests sources ;-), and I had things like this (in this case as javadoc of the class): /** * Enables / disables javascript execution in the HttpUnit "browser". * @webtest * stepname="EnableJavaScript" * description="Permits to activate / deactivate the javascript support" */

looks pretty neat

It would be possible to generate the taskdef file as well. Such a solution would allow contributors to provide a new step as well as the documentation of it in a single file.

wow!

I've heard of people using xdoclet to generate unit tests. While I generally do not favour such approaches, they may be handy for our "Standard"-UnitTests that we apply on Steps (subclasses of StepTest). They test that the step class obeys the Ant contract, String attributes correctly work with "setXXX", parameters are correctly reported and dynamic properties are correctly expanded with them. More Step-specific tests could go in a subclass of the generated test. But this is not an urgent matter...

cheers Mittie