Community status of jqUnit.js

Antranig Basman antranig.basman at
Wed Jan 23 20:18:56 UTC 2013

On 23/01/2013 12:55, Justin Obara wrote:
> I guess I'm not clear on what this meant.
> "So my assessment is that the "onion of testing" which we necessarily depend on in case ii) isn't
> dangerously prejudiced by this new dependency. We can always stand to have better tests, but the area we
> most urgently need them isn't here - it's in the area of having more plain IoC tests - but this can wait
> until the implementation stabilises some more and we have a firm idea of what the IoC system is meant to do
> in each situation."
> Does that mean that there aren't enough plain jqunit test for the IoC portion of the framework?

Not by a mile - but this awaits some measure of how much is "enough". The current version of IoC has too 
many "dark corner" features that could interact in unexpected ways ("mergeAllOptions", "default options", 
"alias", "returnedOptions" etc.) that further inhibit good testing. The version currently under development 
has fewer apparent features (those mentioned previously will be removed) which in theory would make testing 
easier, although it will have a more intricate workflow - which implies that there will need to be a lot 
more of "white-box testing".


More information about the fluid-work mailing list