Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[feature request] Could BRJS add support for integration testing of UI components #966

Closed
tobycatlin opened this issue Sep 15, 2014 · 1 comment

Comments

@tobycatlin
Copy link

Raised as Caplin support issue: http://yourls.caplin.com/3

"As a developer, I have two blades A and B where I want to test complex interactions between them.

Workbenches allow unit testing of blade A and B in isolation, but does not facilitate integration testing, with a visual representation of two components interacting.

BRJS' workbench handling code is not implemented in a very generic way:
case WORKBENCH_INDEX_PAGE_REQUEST:
return getIndexPageContent(app.bladeset(pathProperties.get("bladeset")).blade(pathProperties.get("blade")).workbench(), new Locale(pathProperties.get("locale")), devVersion, contentAccessor, RequestMode.Dev);

This code presumes the workbench lives in a blade, and effectively rules out library level or bladeset level workbenches.

A workaround would be to use another HTML page (index.html) at the bladeset level, to instantiate both components. However further BRJS restrictions impose a 'single-entry' point, default-aspect/index.html, preventing us creating test web pages, or in fact using any sort of multi-page model.

As a feature request, could BRJS add support for integration testing of UI components?

And as a follow up request, could the restriction on 'one workbench per blade', 'one HTML page per app' be lifted to support multiple pages for different testing scenarios?"

@andy-berry-dev
Copy link
Member

Hey @tobycatlin we have 2 other issues that cover this - #945: Allow workbenches on the bladeset level & #950: allow workbenches in BRJS libraries. I'm going to close this as a duplicate in favour of #945 and #950.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants