[00:01:13 EST(-0500)] * lessthanzero (n=FatalRem@CPE001ff342457c-CM001ac352aefc.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) has joined #fluid-work
[08:48:06 EST(-0500)] * Justin_o (n=Justin@142.150.154.171) has joined #fluid-work
[09:05:01 EST(-0500)] * anastasiac (n=team@142.150.154.235) has joined #fluid-work
[09:28:59 EST(-0500)] * laurelw (n=Laurel@142.150.154.178) has joined #fluid-work
[09:30:42 EST(-0500)] * EricDalquist (n=dalquist@bohemia.doit.wisc.edu) has joined #fluid-work
[09:31:16 EST(-0500)] * fj4000 (n=Jacob@142.150.154.106) has joined #fluid-work
[09:34:16 EST(-0500)] * sgithens (n=sgithens@in-143-165.dhcp-149-166.iupui.edu) has joined #fluid-work
[09:41:03 EST(-0500)] * clown (n=clown@142.150.154.202) has joined #fluid-work
[10:30:47 EST(-0500)] * michelled (n=team@142.150.154.197) has joined #fluid-work
[10:40:42 EST(-0500)] * fj4000 (n=Jacob@142.150.154.106) has joined #fluid-work
[10:42:35 EST(-0500)] * fj4000 (n=Jacob@142.150.154.106) has joined #fluid-work
[10:45:58 EST(-0500)] * athena7 (n=athena7@12.164.139.7) has joined #fluid-work
[12:38:46 EST(-0500)] * laurelw (n=Laurel@142.150.154.178) has left #fluid-work
[13:03:24 EST(-0500)] * apetro (n=apetro@12.164.139.7) has joined #fluid-work
[13:13:03 EST(-0500)] * EricDalquist (n=dalquist@bohemia.doit.wisc.edu) has joined #fluid-work
[13:29:45 EST(-0500)] * Bosmon (n=Antranig@ginger.caret.cam.ac.uk) has joined #fluid-work
[14:10:53 EST(-0500)] * laurelw (n=laurel@dsl-207-112-65-164.tor.primus.ca) has joined #fluid-work
[14:50:21 EST(-0500)] * colinclark (n=colin@142.150.154.101) has joined #fluid-work
[15:33:44 EST(-0500)] <Justin_o> I have been talking with Bosmon on ICQ about qUnit and jqUnit. I have explained that for the most part we are moving to a release version of qunit for our unit tests... we will be preserving the current xunit style wrapper functions and leaving the qunit functions. I have messaged the list about renaming jqunit... any thoughts
[15:34:10 EST(-0500)] <Justin_o> since jqunit is somewhat of an extension or wrapper for qunit... would a name that implied that be better
[15:34:26 EST(-0500)] <Justin_o> something like xqUnit or something
[15:35:52 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> I half-jokingly suggested "flu"
[15:35:54 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> Yes
[15:35:54 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> for fluid unit
[15:36:07 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> There seem to be a number of issues surrounding why we are doing this and what we might gain from it
[15:36:18 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> And, what part of what code we currently use is being replaced with what....
[15:36:25 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> We have this file called "testrunner.js"
[15:36:28 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> Bosmon: Very little is changing.
[15:36:37 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> We're throwing away my custom mod of testrunner.js
[15:36:59 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> Which will allow us to more easily track improvements to qUnit.
[15:37:20 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> We pretty much all still use the xUnit-style asserts...
[15:37:21 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> OK
[15:37:27 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> eg. "assertEquals" instead of QUnit's "ok" method.
[15:37:28 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> Justin mentioned that there is a namespacing issue
[15:37:36 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> In that the "new" contents are not namespaced at all
[15:37:43 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> Was all the previous namespacing purely the result of your mod?
[15:37:51 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> Bosmon: yes.
[15:38:14 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> Again, none of us will use the non-namespaced QUnit methods. We'll all go through the jsUnit adaptor.
[15:38:48 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> While I wish jQuery had namespaced their asserts, I guess they wanted to preserve backwards compatibilty.
[15:39:02 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> We'll just avoid them. 
[15:39:17 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> What in Mike is "jsUnit"
[15:39:32 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> jsUnit was the testing framework we used to use.
[15:39:34 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> It was horrible.
[15:39:54 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> So when I switched us to jQuery's test suite, I created an adaptor...
[15:39:58 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> So, by the adaptor, you mean
[15:39:58 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> var jsUnitCompat = {
[15:40:00 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> This
[15:40:01 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> that made it much easier to port our tests over.
[15:40:02 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> Yes, that.
[15:40:13 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> I think everyone here tends to prefer the xUnit-style asserts.
[15:40:18 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> Rather than ok() and the like.
[15:40:23 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> So, by "jsUnit adaptor", you mean, "The thing which adapts the thing which might have been called (j)qUnit to jsUnit syntax"
[15:40:27 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> I just find it really hard to remember the names of John Resig's clever names
[15:40:39 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> Yes, they are unfortunate
[15:41:11 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> Bosmon: As for your previous question, yes, that's right.
[15:41:27 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> OK
[15:41:33 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> So what it it, exactly, that we need a name for?
[15:41:42 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> Since it seems we are not actually adopting anything "new"....
[15:41:46 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> Yes.
[15:42:16 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> So now's the time we could choose to name the namespace for these assertFoo() methods better.
[15:42:21 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> We can keep calling it jqUnit...
[15:42:27 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> but it's not entirely clear what that would be
[15:42:27 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> I would say that makes a lot of sense
[15:42:34 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> or we could call it something elese
[15:42:37 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> OK
[15:42:46 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> I don't see any use behind changing it...
[15:42:46 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> either way, justin was going to preserve backwards compatibility
[15:42:54 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> by aliasing it to jqunit still
[15:42:57 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> Ok
[15:43:06 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> Well, my suggestion is that we just continue to call it jqUnit
[15:43:19 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> cool. what do others think?
[15:43:33 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> i suppose something like "flu" is as equally meaningless as "jqUnit"
[15:44:47 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> It is more meaningless
[15:44:51 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> Since it doesn't end in "unit"...
[15:45:36 EST(-0500)] <Justin_o> i'm fine with anything, just to know what to change it to or not
[15:45:41 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> 
[15:46:12 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> michelled or anastasiac: any opinions?
[15:46:20 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> leave it? clever name ideas?
[15:47:06 EST(-0500)] <michelled> I wasn't watching the channel - let me catch up
[15:47:50 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> short summary: since justin's been porting us to pure QUnit, do we want to take this opportunity to put the various xUnit-style assert functions into a more descriptive namespace/
[15:48:06 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> right now they're jqUnit.foo()
[15:48:18 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> Boz is advocating for the status quo
[15:48:35 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> Justin_o is going with the flow, as always
[15:48:37 EST(-0500)] <anastasiac> hm... it's a jUnit - qUnit adapter, right?
[15:48:50 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> anastasiac: yep, that's one way to put it
[15:49:01 EST(-0500)] <anastasiac> so "jqUnit" seems at least mildly fitting
[15:49:05 EST(-0500)] <colinclark>
[15:49:14 EST(-0500)] <anastasiac> qjUnit?
[15:49:19 EST(-0500)] <Bosmon> ........
[15:49:29 EST(-0500)] <colinclark> qjjqjjqjjqUnit
Manage space
Manage content
Integrations