On 27 May 2013 20:47, Colin Putney <colin at wiresong.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't like the way the tests are written anyway though: I don't like
>> unit tests crawling through the UI. I'd rather see tests that checked
>> the instvars containing the class list etc.
>
>
> These days, the way to do it would be to use ToolBuilder-SUnit. It provides
> trivial widget implementations that don't do anything but expose their
> state. So you can make assertions about what the UI is displaying, and
> easily simulate clicks etc, without having to deal with actual morphs.

Yes! It's not quite as straightforward as that because you get 'Nil
should not have dependents' errors caused by a PluggablePanelSpec
having a nil model somewhere. And just like when you're debugging
monads (like promises), there's time-of-composition and
time-of-execution and it's difficult to make them meet. I'll see if I
can't chase down the offending spec...

frank

> Colin