chore: replace custom test fixture with global setup

[wesbillman]

[deniseli]

this is awesome :D

[deniseli]

I feel like we probably don't need this comment or the one below

[wesbillman]

I agree 😂

[alecthomas]

Just to clarify... what are we thinking re. testing examples? IMO testing that the examples work is great, is that what we're doing? As opposed to, I guess, using the examples to test that our code works.

[wesbillman]

Hmm, ideally we're doing both. We're testing that that console works correctly and in order for that to happen the examples also need to work correctly.

[alecthomas]

I don't think it's a good idea for our tests to be tied to the examples, because it means the examples can't evolve without also having to update tests that are unrelated to them.

[wesbillman]

Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too :)

I think at this point we're basically doing this "IMO testing that the examples work is great" and we're using our existing console tests to do it with the added benefit of making sure the console works e2e with some of our examples. If this starts to become a pain or slows people down with writing examples, we can switch over to the smoketest or something more stable.

For the first time we have some confidence in our examples and console, which feels good at the moment.

[alecthomas]

We can have our cake and eat it, you do exactly what we've been doing up until this point - have a specific set of modules that are used for your tests.

[wesbillman]

Yeah I'm super happy to do that, but it will have the downside of having no idea if our examples work. Plus we'll be continuing to maintain duplicates of lots of module functionality. http is a good example where we want to show examples of http modules + we want to make sure the console's http stuff works.

If that's preferred, then we can just duplicate the examples stuff to use for our e2e tests and deal with examples stability in another way.