зеркало из https://github.com/mozilla/fxa.git
67 строки
2.1 KiB
Markdown
67 строки
2.1 KiB
Markdown
# Use existing InternJS for functional testing in settings v2
|
|
|
|
- Deciders: Vijay Budhram, Jody Heavener, Lauren Zugai
|
|
- Date: 2020-07-17
|
|
|
|
## Context and Problem Statement
|
|
|
|
For over the past 5 years (at least), we have been using [InternJS](https://github.com/theintern/intern) for our functional tests in the content-server. While this has worked well and caught several bugs, we should reevaluate it since we are migrating to react and have an opportunityto use newer/faster/better supported testing frameworks.
|
|
|
|
## Decision Drivers
|
|
|
|
- Ease of writing tests
|
|
- Good community support
|
|
- Learning curve of settings V2 development
|
|
|
|
## Decision Outcome
|
|
|
|
Use InternJS for functional testing in the settings v2 app, but also update the tests to support async/await. The biggest factor was not having to introduce another testing framework for developers to learn.
|
|
|
|
## Considered Options
|
|
|
|
- Option A - Use InternJS and update to async/await
|
|
- Option B - Use [NightmareJS]()
|
|
- Option C - Use [WebDriverIO](https://webdriver.io/)
|
|
|
|
## Pros and Cons of the Options
|
|
|
|
### Option A - Use InternJS and update to async/await
|
|
|
|
Pros:
|
|
|
|
- Active community
|
|
- Can reuse the testing patterns from content-server
|
|
- Lots of examples and helper functions to help write tests
|
|
- Developers won't have to context switch with testing frameworks
|
|
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
- Still requires a learning curve to understand how things work and are structured
|
|
- It's kind of clunky, would be a lot of effort to go refactor all tests to async/await and could be better to just rewrite them with another library
|
|
- It's an older framework, a newer framework may offer greater support and features
|
|
- Our tests are a little flaky, can another framework help mitigate false failures from CI?
|
|
|
|
### Option B - Use NightmareJS
|
|
|
|
Pros:
|
|
|
|
- Claims to be 2x faster than PhantomJS
|
|
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
- Developers/QA will have to learn a new testing framework on top of all the other new frameworks introduced
|
|
- Is chromium based
|
|
|
|
### Option C - Use WebDriverIO
|
|
|
|
Pros:
|
|
|
|
- Active community
|
|
- Used by other Mozilla services
|
|
- Simple API
|
|
- Solid documentation
|
|
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
- Developers/QA will have to learn a new testing framework on top of all the other new frameworks introduced
|