JTF: Javascript Unit Testing Farm

[acemtp]

Hello,

I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
programmer.

It's quite hard to know if some specific code you wrote will work on
all browsers, and if not, why it doesn't work. You often have to
install lot of browsers on your computer, buy a mac or a pc, and make
unit tests.

On JTF (Javascript Unit Testing Farm), you can write javascript unit
tests that will be executed on all browsers, automatically. You'll be
able to post comment, rate scripts and, of course, you'll be able to
reuse, modify and increase the compatibility of current scripts.

I hope you'll like and you'll find this site useful.

http://jtf.ploki.info

[Roman Ziak]

ac****@gmail.co m wrote:

Hello,

I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
programmer.

It's quite hard to know if some specific code you wrote will work on
all browsers, and if not, why it doesn't work. You often have to
install lot of browsers on your computer, buy a mac or a pc, and make
unit tests.

On JTF (Javascript Unit Testing Farm), you can write javascript unit
tests that will be executed on all browsers, automatically. You'll be
able to post comment, rate scripts and, of course, you'll be able to
reuse, modify and increase the compatibility of current scripts.

I hope you'll like and you'll find this site useful.

http://jtf.ploki.info

This is an interesting project.

I have one suggestion - run one test everytime a visitor enters your
site. This way there will not be discrimination from scripts receving
more attention.

This could be also deployed in the background of busy site. Maybe you
could consider making it a package. Developers would just insert it on
their website either into onload event or into interval timer to get
their scripts tested by their visitors.

I just wonder if there is a legal implication of this, because the
provider would be using the visitor's browser for purposes not related
to the site without their explicit agreement.

[electrician]

Thanks for the offer, but I only write for IE 5+. My logic is simple.
I sell continuing education products online. If a person does not have
the money to buy a decent browser and OS then they probably don't have
the money to buy my products. Additionally, the Windows software that
is compatible with IE5+ includes PowerPoint and Frontpage. I use both
these products extensively to develop high volume pages for training
purposes. They are fast and efficient. The W3C standard used by
Netscape, Opera, and FireFox are basic. Adhering to the W3C standards
has kept these browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft
Products. W3C is behind the times and actually works a little like
communism by trying to keep everyone at the same obsolete level.
Adding the price to produce pages compatible with Netscape, Opera, and
Firefox and the W3C standard to my production budget is not a good
marketing decision and therefore should be avoided.

[Evertjan.]

wrote on 30 mrt 2006 in comp.lang.javas cript:

Thanks for the offer ....

Please quote what you are replying to.

If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use the
"Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the
top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article
headers. <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsrep ly/>

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[electrician]

<Hello,

I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
programmer.
It's quite hard to know if some specific code you wrote will work on
all browsers, and if not, why it doesn't work. You often have to
install lot of browsers on your computer, buy a mac or a pc, and make
unit tests.
On JTF (Javascript Unit Testing Farm), you can write javascript unit
tests that will be executed on all browsers, automatically. You'll be
able to post comment, rate scripts and, of course, you'll be able to
reuse, modify and increase the compatibility of current scripts.
I hope you'll like and you'll find this site useful.
http://jtf.ploki.info >
The offer, as quoted from the original post.

My reply:
Thanks for the offer, but I only write for IE 5+. My logic is simple.
I sell continuing education products online. If a person does not have

the money to buy a decent browser and OS then they probably don't have
the money to buy my products. Additionally, the Windows software that
is compatible with IE5+ includes PowerPoint and Frontpage. I use both
these products extensively to develop high volume pages for training
purposes. They are fast and efficient. The W3C standard used by
Netscape, Opera, and FireFox are basic. Adhering to the W3C standards
has kept these browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft
Products. W3C is behind the times and actually works a little like
communism by trying to keep everyone at the same obsolete level.
Adding the price to produce pages compatible with Netscape, Opera, and
Firefox and the W3C standard to my production budget is not a good
marketing decision and therefore should be avoided.

[Zif]

el*********@ele ctrician.com said on 31/03/2006:
[...]

My reply:
Is this a serious statement or just a troll?

Thanks for the offer, but I only write for IE 5+.
Worse, you write only for IE 5+ on Windows.

My logic is simple.
I sell continuing education products online. If a person does not have

the money to buy a decent browser and OS then they probably don't have
the money to buy my products.
What an arrogant attitude.

If you can't be bothered to invest in your own continuing education and
learn to write decent web pages, why should anyone think your products
are worth paying for?

You are clearly ignorant of web standards, what does that say of your
ability to learn, understand and teach about other matters?

Additionally, the Windows software that
is compatible with IE5+ includes PowerPoint and Frontpage. I use both
these products extensively to develop high volume pages for training
purposes.
PowerPoint runs on other platforms, including ones that aren't even PCs.
FrontPage can make web pages that run on any browser, it is your
choice to make them run only in IE on Windows.

They are fast and efficient.
FrontPage is one of the most criticised pieces of software that
Microsoft has ever produced. It is slow, buggy and creates genuinely
bad pages. That you consider it 'fast and efficient' is a hint as to
your ability to determine what is good software. And a reflection of
the quality of the products you sell.

I have never heard anyone characterise PowerPoint as 'fast and
efficient'. Ever.

The W3C standard used by
Netscape, Opera, and FireFox are basic.
The same standards Microsoft (mostly) adheres to? The ones that
Microsoft even helps to define?

Adhering to the W3C standards
has kept these browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft
Products.
That is truly laughable. Microsoft has not updated the functionality of
IE in nearly 6 years and it will be another 12 months before they do.
You clearly haven't investigated the extensions available in other browsers.

W3C is behind the times and actually works a little like
communism by trying to keep everyone at the same obsolete level.
Yeah, I think you're a troll. So capitalism eschews standards, right?
I suppose absolutely nothing in a capitalist society is controlled by
any sort of standard, after all, they are such a communist concept.

Those pinko bastards a the W3C - who the heck are they? Here they are;

<URL:http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List>

A few of turncoats: Microsoft, IBM, Apple, AT&T, Yahoo, Google, Sun...

Adding the price to produce pages compatible with Netscape, Opera, and
Firefox and the W3C standard to my production budget is not a good
marketing decision and therefore should be avoided.

Oh, somebody stop me! You want others to spend money to buy a PC and
software so they can use your products when you are too lousy to invest
a small amount of time and effort to make your products standards compliant?

I guess you don't see the hypocrisy.

--
Zif

[acemtp]

Roman Ziak wrote:

ac****@gmail.co m wrote:

Hello,

I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
programmer.

http://jtf.ploki.info
This is an interesting project.

Thank you.
I have one suggestion - run one test everytime a visitor enters your
site. This way there will not be discrimination from scripts receving
more attention.
That's what it's happen already. test cases are running in background
task using timers and iframes.
This could be also deployed in the background of busy site. Maybe you
could consider making it a package. Developers would just insert it on
their website either into onload event or into interval timer to get
their scripts tested by their visitors.
I thought about that but I don't really think that anyone will add
background tests to his website.
I just wonder if there is a legal implication of this, because the
provider would be using the visitor's browser for purposes not related
to the site without their explicit agreement.

That's a good question and I don't have the answer. But just take a
look at google analytics that get all information about visitors
(screen resolution, java, domain, geo location, languages...).

[sam.partington]

ac****@gmail.co m wrote:

On JTF (Javascript Unit Testing Farm), you can write javascript unit
tests that will be executed on all browsers, automatically. You'll be
able to post comment, rate scripts and, of course, you'll be able to
reuse, modify and increase the compatibility of current scripts.

I hope you'll like and you'll find this site useful.

http://jtf.ploki.info

An excellent idea. I've been trying to think about a good solution to
something like this before. It also has the capability of becoming a
resource for high quality tested library code.

I have a number of suggestions for improvements :

1. It would be nice if there were an easy way to separate the tests
from the code being tested, and allow multiple versions (ie History) of
the tested code. Doing this would make it easier to test newer
versions of the tested code, and tie into the existing unit tests.
Ideally each version of the tested code would be run against the tests.
**

2. Could there be an RSS or mail feed to notify users of failures?

3. A bit more documentation on the mechanics of it all. For example :

a. what happens if my script throws an exception and its not caught?

b. does my script continue after a failed assertion?

i.e.

assertTrue(0);
log("message"); // will this get logged?

c. what environment does the html fragment 'sit' in? it looks like an
iframe, but it would be nice if it were possible to access the source
for it, and have that documented somewhere?

d. when is my script run? After the document has loaded? Or should my
script include attachEvent (or whatever) code if I want to rely on the
html being fully loaded?

4. It would be nice if the "Test Script" button actually ran the script
rather than just doing some sanity checking on it.

5. Could the launcher search for all functions called test???? and run
them? That would match JSUnit better I think. The following code does
that (someone correct me _when_ I'm wrong :-) )

for (var name in window)
{
if (typeof(window[name]) == "function" && name.indexOf('t est') ==
0)
{
window[name]();
}
}
Sorry if this seems overly critical, its not meant to be, as I think
its a fantastic idea :-)

Sam
** I can see this is quite a big feature request! But I think its an
important one.

[sam.partington]

http://jtf.ploki.info

regarding test_stringToDa te, and the comment :

"""
* Posted by acemtp the 2006-03-31 13:10:14 Rated 1 stars. Marked as not
working script
I disable the script for now because your log is too big (15kb). I
have to find a way to send bigger log and please find a way to send
less log :)
"""

I understand now what the submit page meant by the log is limited to
200 characters. I didn't realise that testing an assertion added to
the log.

I don't really see how I can send less log, except by removing the
tests :-) There are only 64 assertions made, which I don't think is
unusual for testing boundary cases on a function like that, (To be
honest its not really enough, there are a whole slew of test cases that
should be added)

I guess the simplest thing would be to only log on a failure, at the
moment pass or fail the log is sent to the server. Which is I think
fairly normal for many unit testing frameworks. You don't really need
confirmation of every test that passed, just a count of how many tests
passed and which ones failed.

I think the 200 character limit will have to be solved at some point,
the other alternative is to use POST the data rather than use a GET
request.

Sam

[Roman Ziak]

ac****@gmail.co m wrote:

Roman Ziak wrote:

ac****@gmail.co m wrote:

Hello,

I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
programmer.

http://jtf.ploki.info

I have one suggestion - run one test everytime a visitor enters your
site. This way there will not be discrimination from scripts receving
more attention.

That's what it's happen already. test cases are running in background
task using timers and iframes.

Ok then. I thought the particular script is being tested only when user
goes to check on its details.

This could be also deployed in the background of busy site. Maybe you
could consider making it a package. Developers would just insert it on
their website either into onload event or into interval timer to get
their scripts tested by their visitors.

I thought about that but I don't really think that anyone will add
background tests to his website.

Here is another idea:

Deploy a server side servise, where users will be able to stuff small
JS codes into the database. Then participating websites will be able to
add to their HTML:

<script
src="http://jtf.ploki.info/getScriptForTes ting.php?uid=12 36"></script>

When I setup an account on your farm, I would like to be able to upload
my scripts for testing and review results. The site moderator and
appointed users could review the submitted scripts before they would be
sent for their first test (untrusted script on trusted site issue).

I have a small site with some ~200 unique visitors a day and growing
and I would sign-up if project was executed properly and there was some
guarantee that those scripts will execute invisibly for my visitors.

Roman