On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Tim Landscheidttim@tim-landscheidt.de wrote:
Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
[...] What we need is something similar to parser tests, where it's absurdly easy to pop new tests in with little to no coding required at all. [...]
Is it really so much more difficult to write
| TestAddArticle ("Main Page", "blah blah");
than
| !! article | Main Page | !! text | blah blah | !! endarticle
or
| TestParser ("External links: trail", "Linktrails should not work for external links: [http://example.com link]s", "<p>Linktrails should not work for external links: <a href="http://example.com%5C" class="external text" rel="nofollow">link</a>s\n</p>");
than
| !! test | External links: trail | !! input | Linktrails should not work for external links: [http://example.com link]s | !! result | <p>Linktrails should not work for external links: <a href="http://example.com" class="external text" rel="nofollow">link</a>s | </p> | !! end
I think the motivation for using standard techniques is to lower the bar for newcomers to the code and not have them to master another ("fairly self-explanatory") syntax.
Tim
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I don't disagree here. I don't really care what the particular format is. My main point (on which I think we agree) was that it needs to be standardized, easy to learn and use, and very flexible to a variety of tests we could potentially want.
-Chad