On: Browser testing sucks, it's time to start doing it right.

[cwp]

I think the goal of "impossible to write bad tests" is unreachable. It's like "idiot-proof": impossible because the idiots are too resourceful. I'll be really happy, though, if Test::Right accomplishes "easy to write good tests." Right now, nothing out there does.

I especially like the decoupling of intentions from mechanics. It lets us improve the mechanics without breaking or rewriting all the tests. Maybe the mechanics are implemented with JS DOM-traversal code, maybe it's CSS selectors, maybe it's SIKULI-like image recognition (http://sikuli.org/).

Looking forward to trying it.

[sgrove → cwp]

> I think the goal of "impossible to write bad tests" is unreachable.

We all sat down a bit ago to reflect on 16 month of non-stop in-the-trenches browser testing for all kinds of people, to integrate it all. We talked about how we wanted to make things better for the people out there who know what they want to do, but are continually screwed over by the how.

The goal "impossible to write bad tests" floated out, and it was almost a joke. But we started to wonder it would take, and it grew more serious. It's a mantra now.

And we have so much cool stuff flowing out form that mantra in the next few weeks/months from that attitude, it's insane.

And excellent point about intentions/mechanics - Jason Huggins is all over Sikuli. We're watching very patiently :)

[cwp → sgrove]

Well, I love big audacious goals. It's just that "impossible to write bad tests" could lead to a system where it's also impossible to write good tests. If you start shooting down good ideas because they could be abused to write bad tests, you'll end up with mediocrity. At the extreme, just prevent people from writing tests at all. Mission accomplished! Now, I know you guys are smarter than that, so I'll just leave it be.

Thanks for the work you've already done on this, and will no doubt do in the future.