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

[acemtp]

> http://jtf.ploki.info

Wow, your comments are invaluable to me. I don't want to spam the NG so
I make only one post with all answers:

Sam, I added a FAQ and TODO page with all your questions!

1. It would be nice if there were an easy way to separate the tests from the code being tested, and allow multiple versions.

I'll think about it.
5. Could the launcher search for all functions called test???? and run
them? That would match JSUnit better I think.
It's true, it's not really like JSUnit but I would like to keep the
system really simple, you put your html, your JS and voila, no need to
add function or what ever. If you split your test in more than one
function in JSUnit, on JTF you'll need to create 2 test cases to
separate them. a JTF test case is 1 function -> 1 set of test for this
function. it's one to one.
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.
It's a technical limit and I'll have to find a way to resolve it, I
cannot just change Get into Post :) It's a quite more complex.
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 tried to use the same philosophy as wiki, no moderators, no accounts,
everybody can post a test case without registration process or
whatever. Everybody can disable a test case if he thinks it's
dangerous. I try to follow the KISS rule :)
<script src="http://jtf.ploki.info/getScriptForTes ting.php?uid=12 36"></script>

I thought about something like that but I was wondering if somebody
will really add it to it's website. If some people are really ready to
add that on there website, it could be really nice.

The bad thing with that is that it will not be collaborative anymore,
only your test cases will be tested or we have to select a sub-set of
trusted script... I'll think about it.

[electrician]

<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. >
There is no hypocrisy. I only have so much time to invest. Contrary
to what you say it takes a great deal of time to maintain "standards
compliant "pages, time that is a waste of time in my opinion. Who is
the standard bearer when 95 percent of the users comply with Microsoft?
W3C is out on the limb, I would say.

FrontPage and PowerPoint work very well for me. I have produced about
330 illustrations in 2 months for my code change course. On my best
day I did 23 illustrated pages. PowerPoint has an excellent graphics
package that allows me to maintain production at about triple the
output per time using a combination of software packages such as ultra
edit, adobe illustrator, paint shop pro and Netscape Composer. I have
done it both ways for about 10 years and believe me FrontPage and
PowerPoint are the way to go. FrontPage is excellent. The JavaScript
debugger works fine and you can switch back and forth between script,
design, preview, and a split screen with a click of a button.
FrontPage has the same drawing objects as PowerPoint and is very
similar.
I have been there and back building about 10,000 web pages over the
last ten years and in my humble opinion these software packages are
unequaled for production verses time. And that is the key element -
output verses time.

I don't really worry about the other browsers other than IE5+ because
like I said before, I sell a product and if a person can't afford
Windows XP and IE5.0+ then they probably are not going to buy the
products anyway. It takes a major amount of time to maintain
compatibility to the so called W3C standards, time which I do not have.
If Bill Gates thought like you, he would still be working out of a
garage. It is all about marketing.

[bgulian]

el*********@ele ctrician.com wrote:

If Bill Gates thought like you, he would still be working out of a
garage. It is all about marketing.

Bill Gates never worked out of a garage. In fact, he built his company
on standards compliance. Now the other guys, Jobs and Wozniak, they
actualy did work out of a garage and established their own standard. I
think they have 5% of the worldwide personal computer market now,
probably less in the US. Although I admire what they did far more than
what Gates did, I have to admit that they "lost".

Now when you say 95% of users comply with the Microsoft standard, when
it comes to browsers, I doubt that is true. It is fair to say that 95%
of corporate/business users use IE 5+ but I'm sure that is not true of
home users. And of the client-side web applications that they use, I
would bet that less than 50% of them are only tested with IE.

Having said that, the company I work for only tests with IE and tells
their users upfront to turn back if they are using another browser.
It makes me very nervous to develop for them, especially in their
reliance on Active X. IE is free and Windows comes with the machine
you buy so I'm not sure what you mean by your "afford to buy my
products" argument. IE 7 moves so close to the W3c standard that you
ought to be more concerned about whether your pages conform. Unless
IE7 will be another "banned" browser in your ever shrinking world.

Bob Gulian

[Randy Webb]

bg*****@gmail.c om said the following on 4/1/2006 10:58 AM:

el*********@ele ctrician.com wrote:

If Bill Gates thought like you, he would still be working out of a
garage. It is all about marketing.
Bill Gates never worked out of a garage.

Directly, true. Paul Allen did most of the garage work.
In fact, he built his company on standards compliance.
Now that is plain ludicrous. Unless the "standards" you are referring to
are/were his own personal standards.
Now the other guys, Jobs and Wozniak, they actualy did work out of
a garage and established their own standard.
And so did Bill Gates.
I think they have 5% of the worldwide personal computer market now,
probably less in the US. Although I admire what they did far more than
what Gates did, I have to admit that they "lost".
If they lost, why does Gates own part of that "loser company"?

BTW, the basis for Windows was stolen from Steve Jobs by Bill Gates.
Now when you say 95% of users comply with the Microsoft standard, when
it comes to browsers, I doubt that is true. It is fair to say that 95%
of corporate/business users use IE 5+ but I'm sure that is not true of
home users. And of the client-side web applications that they use, I
would bet that less than 50% of them are only tested with IE.
It is even more true of home users. They buy a PC, it has Windows and IE
on it. Most web users don't even know that there are 2 browsers
available much less the 150 or so that are actually available for just
Windows.
Having said that, the company I work for only tests with IE and tells
their users upfront to turn back if they are using another browser.
It makes me very nervous to develop for them, especially in their
reliance on Active X.
Why? If a corporation wants to shoot themselves in the foot then let
them. Hell, load the gun for them.
IE is free and Windows comes with the machine you buy so I'm not sure
what you mean by your "afford to buy my products" argument.
And that is why 99% of Windows users use IE as the default browser. It's
free, it was there, they had no reason to go download another.
IE 7 moves so close to the W3c standard that you ought to be more
concerned about whether your pages conform.
<sarcasm>
Oh? My copy handles XHMTL so close to the W3C standards that I thought I
was using Mozilla for a moment
</sarcasm>
Unless IE7 will be another "banned" browser in your ever shrinking world.

If we could only be so lucky :)

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[tihu]

Go to www.electrician.com to see the monster this experienced designer
(10000 pages) has created. You may be pleased to hear that website
almost the same in Firefox as it does in IE, unfortunately its
disgusting in both.

I recommend everyone visit his site to judge his skills in web design
and marketing.

I have never and will never judge a website on standards compliance. I
judge on content, usability, readability, marketing skill and visual
appeance (Not necessarily in this order)

What I assume is your site (www.electrician.com) is fails miserably on
all of these test, I humbly apologise for my rude message if this is
not your site. Before I trash the incompentent fool who designed this
site please let me point out a few flaws in your logic.

There is no hypocrisy. I only have so much time to invest. Contrary
to what you say it takes a great deal of time to maintain "standards
compliant "pages, time that is a waste of time in my opinion. Who is
the standard bearer when 95 percent of the users comply with Microsoft?
W3C is out on the limb, I would say.
In that case I look forward to your explaination why Microsoft is
boasting about their efforts to acheive W3C compliance and apologising
for not fully acheiving their aim, Microsoft do not share your opinions
about W3C and standards.

They do not and probably will never fully implement W3c standards, and
they don't need to - their market share makes it unneccessary , but
they have improved on their last attempt because it is in their
commercial and technical interest to do so.

These are quotes from a developer on the IE7 project

"We fully recognize that IE is behind the game today in CSS support",
"we know Beta 1 makes little progress for web developers in improving
our standards support, particularly in our CSS implementation. I feel
badly about this.."

"In IE7, we will fix as many of the worst bugs that web developers hit
as we can"

The IE developers at Microsoft disagree with you troll boy.

FrontPage and PowerPoint work very well for me. I have produced about
330 illustrations in 2 months for my code change course. On my best
day I did 23 illustrated pages.
If your site is anything to go by it was 23 pages of nasty looking
crap.
PowerPoint has an excellent graphics
package that allows me to maintain production at about triple the
output per time using a combination of software packages such as ultra
edit, adobe illustrator, paint shop pro and Netscape Composer. I have
done it both ways for about 10 years and believe me FrontPage and
PowerPoint are the way to go. FrontPage is excellent. The JavaScript
debugger works fine and you can switch back and forth between script,
design, preview, and a split screen with a click of a button.
Standard features for a web development/design suite!

My preferred choice is Dreamweaver and paint shop pro but that is only
my subjective personal opinion.

Your productivity has little to do with the program itself and has more
to do with the fact that once you know a program well, eg the shortcuts
and toolbars, you can work at a greater speed than if you try out a
different program with similar functionality
FrontPage has the same drawing objects as PowerPoint and is very
similar.
Again most web design/develoment suites provide these feature, both
Macromedia and Adobe have products which do this. But as you are
experienced with Microsoft products then of course it is best you stick
to what you know best.
I have been there and back building about 10,000 web pages over the
last ten years
10,000 crap web pages makes you a shit web designer
And in my humble opinion these software packages are
unequaled for production verses time. And that is the key element -
output verses time.
The products are maythe best for you but they are not the best for
everyone.

I am most productive with Dreamweaver, Paint Shop Pro and Crimson
Editor.

For me it is much much quicker and easier to use these.

If I had to use the software you promote my productivity would drop
dramatically at first then over time it would increase as I learned my
way round the programs. If you changed to the ones I use the same would
happen, the productivity-time factor is not inherent to the programs it
is you experience in using them that makes you fastest with them. Get
the point yet?? Are you so stupid that you could not work this out for
yourself?
I don't really worry about the other browsers other than IE5+ because
like I said before, I sell a product and if a person can't afford
Windows XP and IE5.0+ then they probably are not going to buy the
products anyway.
A 2.3Ghz Mac running safari costs more than most 2.3Ghz pc running
windows. They won't buy your product because your amatuerish web site
has the same effect as a smelly fart in a enclosed space.
It takes a major amount of time to maintain
compatibility to the so called W3C standards, time which I do not have.
Developing a standards compliant page doesnt take much more time or
money than developing an non standard compliant page.

However if you have a large poorly written website like your which is
in urgent need of redeveloping from scratch (like yours) that is a
different matter.
If Bill Gates thought like you, he would still be working out of a
garage. It is all about marketing.

But your site (www.electrician.com) does not display any knack for
marketing OR web design!!! And you are selling your domain name for
funds. What does that sauy about your marketing skill.

Your site fails every marketing test I know, the poorly written
content, a large course table which has a cell three words wide and 11
lines high. Did you intend to make your priice list unreadable??

This is not marketing!

The shocking layout and your habit of using links which contain 30+
words and covering three lines of the screen makes the content hard to
read and unattractive.

Don't worry though, your site is so ugly most people wont even bother
getting to the end of the page where you hid them.

And you put a link with your welcome message at the bottom of the
page!!! Where would you put your welcome doormat? In the attic?

I suggest you get a basic graphic/web design book and learn some of
basics of typography and layout before you claim to be a experienced
designer of 10,000 pages.

In summary your site looks so amatuerish it will deter most client who
can afford to buy your product so I am not surprised you are selling
the www.electrian.com domain name to raise funds.

[tihu]

>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.

Here's the link to the IE blog where the programmers of IE make
trollboy look like a clueless fool

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/03/09/391362.aspx

Heres some quotes from "the lead program manager for the web platform
in IE"

The developers of IE disagree with your idiotic statements in details

"Additional ly, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
CSS and HTML."

"When we shipped IE 6.0, we finally fully supported CSS 1"

"t times we have taken a leading role in standards support - and at
times we have not. When we released Internet Explorer 3.0 for Windows
back in 1996, we had the first CSS implementation out there in a
mass-market web browser. (I personally wrote the code for that
support."

"t times we have taken a leading role in standards support - and at
times we have not. When we released Internet Explorer 3.0 for Windows
back in 1996, we had the first CSS implementation out there in a
mass-market web browser. (I personally wrote the code for that
support."

Shut up Gerald, you're deluded and wrong

[Stephen Kellett]

In message <le************ *************** ***@comcast.com >, Randy Webb
<Hi************ @aol.com> writes

BTW, the basis for Windows was stolen from Steve Jobs by Bill Gates.

Excuse me? You mean a windowing system, bitmap graphics, icons, mouse,
etc? - Apple from Xerox and Xerox on the back of work by Douglas
Englebart, founder of the foresight institute. I really do hate people
giving Apple (or anyone else) the credit for something they did not
invent.

Mr Englebart demonstrated bitmapped graphics and a mouse in 1967. There
is black and white video footage to prove it too. Time you start
Googling for the Bootstrap Institute.

You may dislike Mr Gates, but don't assume Mr Jobs didn't get his
inspiration from someone else. And in case you want to sight the iPod as
a stroke of genius, sorry, but that is just an evolution of the original
insight that gave rise to the Sony Walkman (the first portable music
player).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Engelbart
http://www.bootstrap.org/

Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
Computer Consultancy, Software Development
Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

ti**@hotmail.co .uk wrote:

Heres some quotes from "the lead program manager for the web platform
in IE"
YMMD.
The developers of IE disagree with your idiotic statements in details
The developers of IE say much. They also said XMLHttpRequest would be a
native object in IE 7.
"Additional ly, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
CSS and HTML."

"When we shipped IE 6.0, we finally fully supported CSS 1"

But they do not. This can be easily proven by trying the W3C CSS 1 Test
Suite.
PointedEars

[tihu]

Read The Fucking Message you pointyeared freak

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

ti**@hotmail.co .uk wrote:

Heres some quotes from "the lead program manager for the web platform
in IE"
YMMD.

The developers of IE disagree with your idiotic statements in details

The developers of IE say much. They also said XMLHttpRequest would be a
native object in IE 7.

Looks like they kept their word this time klingonboy

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/01/23/516393.aspx

"Additional ly, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
CSS and HTML."

"When we shipped IE 6.0, we finally fully supported CSS 1"

But they do not. This can be easily proven by trying the W3C CSS 1 Test
Suite.
PointedEars

we all know they dont, do you always miss the point like that?

if you read what i actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote you
will see i said about microsoft "boasting about their efforts" as well
as "They do not and probably will never fully implement W3c standards"

I included microsoft marketing shite because the electrician's
ridiculous claim was "Adhering to the W3C standards has kept these
browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft Products"

try harder thomas

[RobG]

Stephen Kellett wrote:

In message <le************ *************** ***@comcast.com >, Randy Webb
<Hi************ @aol.com> writes

BTW, the basis for Windows was stolen from Steve Jobs by Bill Gates.

Excuse me? You mean a windowing system, bitmap graphics, icons, mouse,
etc? - Apple from Xerox and Xerox on the back of work by Douglas
Englebart, founder of the foresight institute. I really do hate people
giving Apple (or anyone else) the credit for something they did not invent.

Hell, let's get way OT!

You're right, Jobs didn't invent the GUI, mouse or OO programming. He
freely admits that he got the idea from Xerox, they freely admit to giving
him the idea royalty free (much to the chagrin of Xerox researchers).

Gates saw the same stuff 'cos he was developing for Mac OS at the time -
Word and Excel became the packages they are off the back of the Mac GUI,
not Windows. Microsoft didn't have a windows-based GUI to develop or
deliver them on.

As for standards compliance, I think Macs have always been far more
standards compliant than PCs. The difference was that the PC world went
for cheap and nasty - ISA, EISA, MS-DOS, parallel, serial, etc. whereas
Macs used SCSI, NuBus, Postscript, etc. Standardisation in the PC world is
based on the original IBM clones - essentially a very basic architecture
stolen from IBM.

Remember when to add anything to a PC you had to add a card? Sound, colour,
heck even graphics usually needed another card stuck in somewhere. And
mice? Sheesh, how many PCs still use PS2 connectors for mice?
Mr Englebart demonstrated bitmapped graphics and a mouse in 1967. There
is black and white video footage to prove it too. Time you start
Googling for the Bootstrap Institute.

You may dislike Mr Gates, but don't assume Mr Jobs didn't get his
inspiration from someone else.

The genius of Mac OS is the GUI paradigm established by the original
programming team. The 'look and feel' they created still hasn't been
bettered and has been implemented in just about every GUI since.
--
Rob