Community status of jqUnit.js

Colin Clark colinbdclark at
Mon Jan 21 15:56:03 UTC 2013

Hey all,

On 2013-01-18, at 7:31 PM, Justin Obara <obara.justin at> wrote:

> I guess I have three points to bring up.
> 	• Do we have users who only use jqUnit but not the framework?

Personally, I am not keen on supporting jqUnit independently from Infusion. I just don't think it makes sense  to use without Infusion and IoC, since there just isn't much there--a few utilities and a whole layer of xUnit-style silliness that we've all become hopeless dependent on. What's the benefit for your average developer? My guess is, as a result, no one is depending on it alone.

Back in 2007, there was someone who had adopted jqUnit and created a mock testing environment on top of it, but as far as I know it hasn't been active or in use since then.

If we want to be very prudent, we could ask the user list, but I'd be surprised if there are any active, non-Infusion clients of jqUnit.

> 	• Should we add a build module for jqUnit?

In order to provide it as an optional tool for developers who are using Infusion? That way, they would be able to test their apps with jqUnit, too, without having to grab it from our Git repo? I think it's a reasonable idea, assuming we want to offer it as a supported tool. I would, for example, likely pick it up and use it in Flocking.

But I wonder if perhaps distributing jqUnit via npm might be as useful as with our Builder?

> 	• Will this make our tests more brittle, since changes to the framework could potentially affect it?

Can you elaborate on the kinds of brittleness that you're concerned about? Perhaps some examples?
How, specifically, is it a big issue?


Colin Clark

More information about the fluid-work mailing list