canmove, Confirmed users
2,041
edits
Auto-tools/Projects/Mozmill/Meeting-2011-03-15: Difference between revisions
Auto-tools/Projects/Mozmill/Meeting-2011-03-15 (view source)
Revision as of 21:08, 15 March 2011
, 15 March 2011→QA Automation Section
(Created page with "= QA Automation Section = * 2.0 work continuing apace ** Discussion on managing multiple windows (Henrik) ** Controller/elementslib refactor underway (Andrew/Geo) * News: ** Rest...") |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= QA Automation Section = | = QA Automation Section = | ||
* 2.0 work continuing apace | * 2.0 work continuing apace | ||
** Discussion on managing multiple windows (Henrik) | ** {{bug|639870}}: Discussion on managing multiple windows (Henrik) | ||
** Controller/elementslib refactor underway (Andrew/Geo) | ** {{bug|632451}}: Controller/elementslib refactor underway (Andrew/Geo) | ||
* News: | * News: | ||
** Restart test changes landed - restart tests can be one file now | ** Restart test changes landed - restart tests can be one file now | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* IOCompletion status | * IOCompletion status | ||
* Triage of 2.0?/2.0+ | * 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? | |||