[Development] QML testing

Joshua Kolden joshua at crackcreative.com
Tue Mar 4 00:39:18 CET 2014

Sorry, one other thing.  It would also be great if the qml test framework could understand javascript .map files so as to point to the correct source file lines.  (http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/developertools/sourcemaps/)

On Mar 3, 2014, at 3:34 PM, Joshua Kolden <joshua at crackcreative.com> wrote:

> I’ve done a buch of work with TDD and qml now, and built a very nice test framework in coffeescript with “before each” “after each”; nice spec style ‘it “has a feature”`, signal handling, color coded output the whole bit. 
> There are, however, two remaining big frustrations that make continuous testing during development very challenging.  One is the tendency for the test runner to pull focus, for longer running tests it makes it nearly impossible to leave the test system running while coding.  Every time you save a watched file focus is pulled away from the text editor and may or may not ever come back. If one is working in full screen mode on a mac then the entire screen is shifted to a different desktop even if no actually GUI pops up.  Is there any way to keep this from happening? 
> The second issue is the hard stop on test failure.  Actually there is even a hard stop if a SignalSpy.wait() doesn’t receive it’s signal.  It may not be an error for a signal not to fire, so I don’t agree with the behavior that SignalSpy.wait() fails hard.  However, even the test conditions shouldn’t stop code execution.  It makes it very hard to predictably reset the environment for the next test.  I can’t do things like after each test dump the LocalStorage, or prior to each test ask my web service if a test object still exists (wait for signal from XMLHttpRequest) and call the server’s delete api if it does, and move on to the test either way.  I’d love to be able to wait for either success or fail signals at the same time so I can jump right to debugging the issue instead of simply getting a uninformative failure because a success signal did not fire, but as it is I can only include SignalSpy.wait if it is exactly the only thing I expect to happen.  I can call wait() and then look at each spy’s count, but that makes the test very difficult to read, and starts spinning off into absurd complexity in every individual test to handle just a few conditional signals.
> So I’d like to know if there is any way to alter these two behaviors as it stands now now.  I'm hard pressed to understand a reason to fail hard when a test condition fails, is this deliberate behavior?  Also, I’d like to ask whoever is working on the QML test case stuff if these are features that could be included in the near future (perhaps even as the default behavior).
> Thanks,
> j
> P.S. I’ll probably open source the test framework in the near future if anyone is interested.

More information about the Development mailing list