[Webtest] Extensibility of Canoo

Daniel Sheppard webtest@lists.canoo.com
Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:31:39 +1100


I've been doing a little bit of fiddling here and there with Canoo, and w=
as looking curiously at the design and have asked myself:

Why doesn't TestSpecification (and TestStepSequence) implement TaskContai=
ner?

If this question has been raised before, and there's good reason, please =
shoot me down now so I don't start trying to implement it.

The main reason why I think this would be better would be the ability to =
plug-in an arbitary test into Webtest without having to play with the sou=
rce (and expose yourself to upgrade risk). I'm of the opinion that ease o=
f plugability can do wonders for an app.

What downsides would you see to this?

The tasks would all now have to extend Task (and implement TaskContainer =
in the case of not/repeat). Actually, if AbstractTestStepSpecification sh=
ould be changed to extend Task, I wouldn't see too much change at all... =
most of TestStepSequence could be happily thrown away and replaced with a=
=20lovely little addTask method.

Should be possible to just use the TaskAdapter on the classes if you want=
=20the code to be kept non-ant specific.

Config would have to be a task, which seems intuitively a little funny, b=
ut not a problem.

I'll probably start trying a quick and dirty implementation over the next=
=20couple of days, so any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. =


Daniel Sheppard
eCommerce Developer
Pronto Software Pty Ltd
Phone: +61-3-9887-7770   Fax: +61-3-9887-7779
#########################################################################=
############
This email has been scanned by MailMarshal, an email content filter.
#########################################################################=
############