Closed cvan closed 9 years ago
I filed #32 for this, but this has more details so I'm fine keeping either one.
I added simple marionette tests for browser.html[1] using a new graphene-marionette-runner[2] module I created. My recommendation would be to try to use the same test framework as they are - so we can improve it over time and save some cycles. I'm happy to open a pull request with a simple test if we want to do this.
[1] https://github.com/mozilla/browser.html/commit/e0461ed19118952950a8777e3254a17e06f83266 [2] https://github.com/KevinGrandon/graphene-marionette-runner
ah, may bad. I don't know how I didn't find that - I must've not been searching properly (or at all). anyway, closing this in favour of #32. moved the discussion there. thanks!
I've had great experience using CasperJS (using both PhantomJS [WebKit] and SlimerJS [Gecko] as the engines) tests to write + drive automated browser tests.
Running locally is a breeze. And running on Travis CI (and, yes, we can get private accounts there) + Sauce Labs, we can run the tests in the cloud, across multiple types of machines, and .
Mozilla's testing stack might be easier considering we're running a custom . Whatever Firefox B2G desktop uses (was Marionette using Python), we should consider using. Or at least the infrastructure, but we should use a different testing lib + runner (like CasperJS in Node vs. Python in Marionette, which is also custom Mozilla tech).
Relevant B2G testing links:
@KevinGrandon do you have thoughts and ideas here?