Refactor testrunner to use JSON as test descriptor. #669
Conversation
tools/test_runner.js
Outdated
| Runner.prototype.run = function() { | ||
| if (this.attr.skip && (this.attr.skip.indexOf('all') >= 0 || | ||
| this.attr.skip.indexOf(this.driver.os) >= 0)) { | ||
| if (skip = this.test['skip']) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I hope to declare skip variable for the function scope, or this skip, which someone might use this name on later, let him/her be very hard to seek to find where it is used.
konradlipner
left a comment
konradlipner
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In general I see no benefit to use json over js. Moreover I think this limits our use case:
- json is more restrictive, does not allow functions
- we have to load it in 3 lines, instead of 1 require, and the result is exactly the same in both cases - JS object with tests description.
tools/test_runner.js
Outdated
| Runner.prototype.run = function() { | ||
| if (this.attr.skip && (this.attr.skip.indexOf('all') >= 0 || | ||
| this.attr.skip.indexOf(this.driver.os) >= 0)) { | ||
| if (skip = this.test['skip']) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- skip is undeclared, this is against coding rules
- assignment in if is a bad practice, please don't do this :)
|
The benefit of changing to JSON is for maintenance. Actually this JS file is not code but more like data. @kolipka, do you have any requirement to describe function to this file? |
|
@yichoi Currently no. In the future maybe - if we will support running tests on multiple platforms, we would possibly want to skip certain tests, not the whole file. For this purpose I would prefer to tests in test file decide does it need execution (based on some env values), rather than skipping whole file. This is just a question. Every JSON is valid JS, so switching back cost nothing if needed. There is just one thing to fix in code, and whole change is fine for me. |
|
The motivation for this is sharing this data with other environments like python. This is needed for automated testing IoT.js on devices. |
|
@kolipka, @chokobole: Thanks for your notices. As @zherczeg wrote, JSON like syntax is more general, many programming languages can deal with it easily. We have implemented an automatized test environment in Python (for stm32f4 board) and we would like the test information to be in a common format. |
rtakacs
force-pushed
the
testdriver_with_json
branch
from
bed184f to
297cbd0
Compare
|
I've updated the PR. |
|
@rtakacs Thanks. If we want to use it in python, advantage of json is clear :) |
IoT.js-DCO-1.0-Signed-off-by: Roland Takacs rtakacs.u-szeged@partner.samsung.com
rtakacs
force-pushed
the
testdriver_with_json
branch
from
297cbd0 to
cba6530
Compare
|
LGTM |
6 participants
No description provided.