[Webtest] Better way to integrate users' proposed steps

Dierk Koenig webtest@lists.canoo.com
Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:43:35 +0200


I see the value of the proposal.
We would already have the "extensions" package, where such contributions
could live in.

Having two levels of quality makes me feel a little bit uncomfortable.
I would rather prefer to put extension steps somewhere outside the
Canoo Webtest distribution, like sourceforge or tigris.

cheers Mittie

BTW: I will be away the next two weeks.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: webtest-admin@lists.canoo.com
> [mailto:webtest-admin@lists.canoo.com]On Behalf Of Marc Guillemot
> Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 2003 9:48
> To: webtest@lists.canoo.com
> Subject: [Webtest] Better way to integrate users' proposed steps
> A proposotion to find a better way to integrate users' proposed steps
> -----
> New steps posted in this list get lost
> Users post new steps (the last was Matt Raible's <sleep> step on
> 08.10.2003) in
> this mailing list but they don't get integrated. I guess as well
> that other
> users have written some custom steps that are working well for
> their own needs.
> All this work does not benefit to the community.
> Webtest standard
> Even if I'm now a committer, I can't integrate rapidly something like the
> <sleep> step as it would require to write unit and functional
> tests to respect
> the library standard. It takes time and it's not always so easy.
> Add a "contribution" package
> I think that this quality policy is good and should stay the
> rule. But we could
> add something like a com.canoo.webtest.steps.contrib package to
> provide a way to
> incorporate new steps that don't (yet) fit in the standard. Theses steps
> wouldn't aim to stay in the contrib package but should be
> refactored and moved
> to the "normal" packages when someone takes time/finds a way to write
> appropriate functional and unit tests.
> I think that, with such a facility, the number of avalaible steps
> will rapidly
> increase (personnally I've some steps like verifyimages,
> extractlinkparameter,
> enablejavascript, ... waiting that I take time/find a way to write the
> appropriate functional and unit tests before beeing incorporated).
> If we decide to use such a way, we should document what is needed
> to accept a
> new step. I see:
> - the step class
> - the description of the step action and of it's attributes
> (name, description,
> required) (we could use xdoclet to generate the doc from the java files)
> - a code sample
> Waiting for comments...
> Marc.
> _______________________________________________
> WebTest mailing list
> WebTest@lists.canoo.com
> http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest