On 03 Jun 2014, at 17:39, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-06-02, 9:35 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> On 6/2/14, 5:33 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote: >>> Do either of you have reasoning for that other than "it looks better >>> to me"? >> >> My personal experience is that when I try to write xpcshell tests the >> amount of time it takes to type the test function names is very >> noticeable and actively interrupts my thinking about what I actually >> want to test... I find it much simpler to write mochitests than >> xpcshell tests for this reason. >> >> I'm quite willing to believe this is not the case for everyone else, of >> course. >> >>> I personally think consistency trumps any personal preferences >>> based on length/concision >> >> Of course given the existence of testharness we're not going to get >> consistency in mochitest anyway, even with this change. >> >>> as long as what we end up with isn't unreasonably long/verbose. >> >> I think what xpcshell has now and what testharness says and what's being >> proposed (with the "Assert." prefix) are unreasonably long/verbose. > > So, what is the decision about what was mentioned in the original post about > reviewers requiring using Assert.jsm in mochitest-chrome/browser? I mostly > care about the former, and I don't think anything in the subthread that got > started with my reply addresses that point at all. I was mainly pointing reviewers of (new) XPCShell tests towards Assert.jsm methods *without* prefix. I’ll remove them from the MDN docs as well. The namespace will remain optional. (Some tests already use it, which is perfectly fine). As for Mochitest-chrome and/ or browser: I’d like to defer that discussion and decision-making to bug 1018226 for those interested. Mike. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
