Revision as of 18:15, 15 March 2011

QA Automation Section

2.0 work continuing apace
- Discussion on managing multiple windows (Henrik)
- Controller/elementslib refactor underway (Andrew/Geo)
News:
- Restart test changes landed - restart tests can be one file now
- Mozmill now has a unittester

class structure for control flow: bug 641615; currently, we have test setup and runner logic scattered in a few places. It would be good to unify most of this in a single class
- ... however, does it matter? I was going to do this because MozMillAsyncTests were an object and I was going to unify the control flow; but there are currently no MozMillAsyncTests, so should we do this for 2.0? Or just clean up what's there?
- similarly, should we eliminate MozMillAsyncTest? If not, we *should* do the above
- and should we eliminate setupTest/teardownTest?

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 * IOCompletion status
 * Triage of 2.0?/2.0+
+== Decisions ==
+* class structure for control flow: bug 641615; currently, we have test setup and runner logic scattered in a few places.  It would be good to unify most of this in a single class
+** ... however, does it matter?  I was going to do this because MozMillAsyncTests were an object and I was going to unify the control flow; but there are currently no MozMillAsyncTests, so should we do this for 2.0?  Or just clean up what's there?
+** similarly, should we eliminate MozMillAsyncTest? If not, we *should* do the above
+** and should we eliminate setupTest/teardownTest?