[sugar] Automated testing of activities
Wed Jul 18 14:52:24 EDT 2007
Kent Quirk wrote:
> Is automated testing intended for more than just battery life testing?
> If not, is it really necessary for every activity to support it? If so,
> what do you expect to accomplish? Will it actually save more than the
> amount of time taken to implement it for a given activity?
As one of the instigators of the push toward automated testing, I should
chime in with my two cents worth:
Fully-automated testing of activities could indeed be a huge time sink,
but I think there are some easy steps that should more than pay for
a) Activity developers should write down use cases for each major
feature, including a description for how to exercise that feature. This
part is just engineering 101, and it is easily justified. It will help
the testing team do manual testing too.
b) It would also be helpful if each activity listed its assumptions
about system files and its effect on the filesystem. We are thinking
about removing unused system files to reduce bloat, so we need some way
to determine whether removal of a system file causes activity breakage.
If we had an exerciser script or storyboard (doesn't have to be
automated; could be executed by a human) as well as some way to detect
failure, then we could do regression testing.
Automated testing is a laudable long-term goal, but in the short run we
need something that is reasonably comprehensive, whether automated or
not. It seems like a bad idea to depend on the testers to come up with
ad-hoc test sequences for activities.
More information about the Sugar-devel