Community status of jqUnit.js

Justin Obara obara.justin at
Thu Jan 24 19:43:15 UTC 2013

Maybe it would be a good time to have a quick chat about this. Perhaps we could arrange a Skype call.


On 2013-01-23, at 3:18 PM, Antranig Basman <Antranig.Basman at> wrote:

> 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".
> Cheers,
> A
> _______________________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see

More information about the fluid-work mailing list