Closed (fixed)
Project:
Panopoly
Version:
7.x-1.x-dev
Component:
Admin
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
11 Dec 2013 at 02:47 UTC
Updated:
8 Jul 2014 at 17:50 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent
All of our Behat widget tests start by creating a "Content page". However, should we instead use a "Landing page"?
Here are the advantages to a "Landing page" as I see them:
- No need to fill in a body, so it's few steps that we are copy/pasting - less repetition is good!
- The layout is simpler by default ("Boxton" vs "Bryant"), so we don't have to worry about targeting a specific region
- Some of the tests depend on listing "Content pages" (for example, the tests that involve the "Content list" widget). If a test fails, it'll leave a stray "Content page" around which can mess up the "Content list" tests, because now there is an unexpected page. This makes those tests less stable.
Anyway, it's a couple of positives and no negatives that I'm aware of.
What do you think?
Comments
Comment #1
lsolesen commentedWe could also utilize the Drupalextension there is a Given I view this node type ... or something like that.
Comment #2
dsnopekYeah, if we stick with Content Pages, that'd be good. But we'd still have to deal with #2 and #3 on my list in the description. Landing pages aren't nodes, so we'd have to make our own "Given ..." step for those, but it'd be a good idea!
Comment #3
lsolesen commentedI am on the landing page idea. Only reason I started out with content pages was that landing pages needs some random code for the url not to clash. So I am all for the landing page idea especially when creating our own given-step :)
Comment #4
dsnopekComment #5
dsnopekI've replaced the bit at the beginning of all the widget tests where we create a Content Page with a "Given I am viewing a landing page" step. The tests all work for me locally, let's see what Travis-CI says:
https://travis-ci.org/panopoly/panopoly/builds/28226419
Comment #9
dsnopekOk, I managed to mess up this commit somehow. :-/ I was working on several changes at once and then tried to pull out just the changes for this particular issue, and ended up accidentally leaving a bunch of stuff out. Definitely will try not to do that again... I'm trying to fix this now!
Comment #12
dsnopekOMG, this is finally passing! This was a merge nightmare combined with a Travis-CI only problem. Next time I'm going to be sure to run my personal GitHub on Travis-CI before committing!
Comment #13
dsnopek