Functional tests

[alechenninger]

I'm not incredibly happy with the unit tests.

Besides that many had to just be eliminated due to refactorings and have not yet been replaced, I think we need functional tests too. This can present edge cases more naturally and actually catch real bugs before they are found by real users.

Need...

• Decide on a WebDriver implementation to test against. Many of them? Firefox? PhantomJS? HTMLUnit?
• Configuration to run real browsers - Travis can integrate with SauceLabs.
• Test pages
• Code abstractions for accessing these test resources, starting and closing browsers
• The tests

[alechenninger]

It would be a lot easier to practice TDD / BDD this way too. Think of a scenario that needs help? Write some example html and js, write the test, make it pass.

[alechenninger]

Could actually write tests in darcy-web and then whatever implemented darcy-web could run those tests against itself!

[spyrkob]

Hey, I came up with this spykob@dea581ec0ca51afe920674d571a8692d530db525 to start up embedded Jetty and run a test against it.

It should be easy to abstract the browser creation so that the tests can be shared - but I wonder where should the test cases live.
If they are in darcy-web test directory, they won't be bundled in the project jar and implementing modules won't have access to them.
On the other hand putting them in src/main doesn't feel right.
Maybe a new module for the abstract tests?

[alechenninger]

@spyrkob I extracted out the @Rule bits to their own library since I couldn't find anything like this for serving static content: https://github.com/alechenninger/httpserverrule

WireMock is kinda like this, maybe it would be better to extend that to allow it to serve a directory, but I didn't have much luck going down that route. Especially since as you can see doing it like this is really simple.

One of the things I did was allow for a server to be reused across tests and not shutdown until JVM exit. I think I might refactor how this is done a bit but, it works.

As far as darcy specific test support, I agree we need another module like, darcy-web-test or something of the sort. However I think for most things using the @Rule will be fine. I've been thinking I'm less into functional tests for the darcy-webdriver library, because we start duplicating a lot of the WebDriver tests. We're relying on WebDriver to "just work." So I don't want to be testing too much of that. However, stuff like JQueryDataTable abstraction in darcy-web: that could use an integration test with an actual jQuery DataTable to make sure the abstraction is accurate.