Redcar features

[Daniel Lucraft]

How much value do you think they actually provide? I confess I don't run them as often as I should, which is one reason I've never come down really hard on patches without features.

I'm considering moving as many as possible to specs, and either keeping a very minimal set of smoke tests, or killing them entirely.

What do people think?

[Mat Schaffer]

Not sure how much weight I have here since I've been dark for over a year now. But for what it's worth, the integration tests have always been something I liked about Redcar. Most other editors offer basically nothing on that front. I'm not married to cucumber or rspec (I quite like test::unit, honestly). But some integration testing tool would be a shame to loose.

-Mat

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Redcar" group.
To post to this group, send email to redcar...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to redcar-edito...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redcar-editor?hl=en.

[Oliver Barnes]

+1, I'd agree with that. But I'm only a user too ;)

--
skype: oli.barnes
+55 11 8147 5272
http://flavors.me/oliverbarnes

[Dee]

Integration testing is always nice to have, though I can echo the sentiment that they are sometimes difficult to maintain, particularly for external plugins. A set of smoke tests sounds like a good idea though. The best features seem to be the "core" ones.


Delisa

[Oliver Barnes]

on a related note, just got the latest praprog newsletter with the
updated "Scripted GUI Testing with Ruby". has anybody read the first
edition?

http://goo.gl/PNXOt

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Redcar" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/redcar-editor/-/K_jiXkpLNGoJ.

[Daniel Lucraft]

Yeah, it's pretty good.