Bad tests #9
Bad tests #9
Conversation
|
A look, please? |
|
Might still be broken. |
|
Should be good to go. Please review/merge. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I see -- you recommended the change because this is no longer a subclass of IntegrationTestCase.
I don't think I should. This is still an integration test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, had a double check - it's integration test. But, we never used integration in test class :P
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TestPageDetail seems fine. Or perhaps we should indicate test types in their names? 🐸
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is already a TestPageDetail. That is the test above.
|
@ian-foote @kevinetienne wanna look as discussed? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you ever need to use PageHandler().view? I think this might not work as expected if you do.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do. But I think I'm one step ahead of you. ;).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, you might be able to avoid a metaclass by using a classmethod. (For example in incuna-test-utils.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that the metaclass makes for a cleaner API, though. One just uses .view, and gets on with it. Perhaps I will change my mind when it comes to adding the management interface.
|
Docstrings. |
For tests?! |
|
Yes. Just a quick summary of what you're testing. |
|
Okay. I'll do the tests from this PR, and I have added #11 for the other tests in the project. |
Docstrings are for code |
|
Do you mind if I do the docstrings in another PR? This one will get too overwhelming with them in, I think. |
|
Thanks |
Bad testing lead to code that wasn't correctly integrated.