3 ms·
PhantomJS seems like something I should pay more attention to.
by joshu 15y ago
PhantomJS seems like something I should pay more attention to.
- joshbuddy 15y agoPhantomJS is pretty cool. There are some super rough areas I had to deal with to get this working, but I hope they can improve it and make it more awesome. I've gotta file some bugs actually.. I was just happy to get the link traversal test passing. So many tears to get that reliable.
- kaylarose 15y agoThis is my PhantomJS experience as well! What mitigated this a bit though, is the actual Phantom codebase on-top of Webkit is really small. So when you need to figure out exactly what it's doing, it's super easy to just dig into the src. I'm hoping more visibility as CLI JS (and/or Coffescript) testing becomes more mainstream, it will bump up the # of contributors.
- kaylarose 15y agoPhantomJS is one of the better "headless" browsers out there. Webkit-based, Minimal src codebase (Python), and easy to compile (with QT tools). IMO The API is a little weird though: when evaluating js within a PhantomJS "WebPage" context, it is _completely_ sandboxed. i.e. you can't use closures or otherwise reference any variables outside the scope of your "WebPage" (without work-arounds). This is odd, when you consider that the page is just another var in your script. IMO it kind of breaks some JS paradigms. Not a big deal, but an annoyance none-the-less.