Confirmed users
1,567
edits
Compatibility/Web Testing: Difference between revisions
→Some anonymized comments from elsewhere
(Creation of the Web Testing) |
|||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
* But I hear concerns about multiplatform support and standardization, though I'd personally think there would be room for a more-phantomjs-like API standardization effort, or at least a more "close to the metal" one than what the WebDriver spec tries to provide.» | * But I hear concerns about multiplatform support and standardization, though I'd personally think there would be room for a more-phantomjs-like API standardization effort, or at least a more "close to the metal" one than what the WebDriver spec tries to provide.» | ||
* I don't see why a BDD setup using Jasmine or Mocha with a decent runner such as Testem or Karma isn't used much more for functional/UI testing of single-page applications in real browsers (see https://github.com/webpro/Automated-SPA-Testing#functional-testing or https://github.com/webpro/baseplate/blob/master/test/mocha-behavior/specs/moduleB.behavior.js for an example). The only real downside I can see so far is not being able to navigate across pages (which is usually not a big issue here). | * I don't see why a BDD setup using Jasmine or Mocha with a decent runner such as Testem or Karma isn't used much more for functional/UI testing of single-page applications in real browsers (see https://github.com/webpro/Automated-SPA-Testing#functional-testing or https://github.com/webpro/baseplate/blob/master/test/mocha-behavior/specs/moduleB.behavior.js for an example). The only real downside I can see so far is not being able to navigate across pages (which is usually not a big issue here). | ||
[[Category:Web Compatibility]] | |||