4 ms·
I like the cleanliness of not needing a browser. But it seems like you'll have to duplicate a lot of functionality and as soon as there are a couple of things
by arnorhs 16y ago
I like the cleanliness of not needing a browser.
But it seems like you'll have to duplicate a lot of functionality and as soon as there are a couple of things you can't test against or that don't produce the exact same result then this becomes unreliable.
Am I wrong?
- reid 16y agoSimulated-browser tests are more like smoke tests. It's an approximation of the environment you're running tests in. Zombie and other simulated-browser systems can be useful because they're faster and convenient, but especially because they're faster. If you're not able to test quickly, like the article says, you lose the flow. Nevertheless, you'll be burned if you don't also test in the browsers you're supporting. davnola, posted above, has the right idea: use Selenium with your CI system in addition to Zombie. Another idea: make real-browser testing for development faster. I'm working on a tool that does just that, if you're curious: https://github.com/yui/yeti https://github.com/yui/yeti http://reid.github.com/decks/2010/yuiconf/yeti.html http://reid.github.com/decks/2010/yuiconf/yeti.html Like it's peers, my project won't work for everyone, yet. But it's awesome to see so many people caring about testing web apps in dev quickly. Hooray! :)