Re: WWDC and AS
Re: WWDC and AS
- Subject: Re: WWDC and AS
- From: Andrew Oliver <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 10:24:36 -0800
On 4/1/04 8:03 AM, "Don Briggs" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
I see the WWDC session, "Automated Testing Using AppleScript," as a
>
hopeful sign.
Really? To me this sounds like someone from Apple DTS telling developers to
generate their UI using Interface Builder so that System Events/UI scripting
can click buttons, activate fields, etc., etc.
There are a number of apps whose UI environment doesn't respond to System
Events and I fear this is an attempt to 'bring them into the fold'.
>
I see it as another indication of Apple's commitment to AppleScript
>
and, I infer, to AppleScriptability for Cocoa.
To me, "Automated Testing" screams 'emulating user actions'. It does not in
any way imply or require a robust object or event dictionary in the
application which is what's needed for *true* AppleScriptability (at least
on any worthwhile level).
As an example, some poor sop on Apple's AppleScript discussion board
recently posted about his 'solution' to find/replace text in a 3MB file.
http://discussions.info.apple.com/.68910d98
The 'solution' involved opening the doc in TextEdit and using UI scripting
to manipulate the 'Find/Replace' dialog - he was complaining about the lack
of speed.
This perfectly qualifies as "automated testing' - "yes, the user can open
the 'find' dialog, type a find and a replace string and make the changes in
his document", but it in no way represents a practical solution to his
problem.
'Automated Testing using AppleScript' does not require *any* real
object-level application support. If Apple are redefining 'AppleScript
support' as meaning 'can be automated via UI scripting' it's a sad, sad day
for us all.
Andrew
:-/
>
In the WWDC AppleScriptability sessions of recent years, developers
>
have been encouraged to design new apps with AppleScriptability in
>
mind.
Shame Apple's own developers don't attend - or at least take notes.
>
On Mar 31, 2004, at 5:32 PM, has wrote:
>
>
> John C. Welch wrote:
>
>
>
>> Ooh...the list of WWDC sessions that mention AppleScript:
>
>> [...]
>
>> Automated Testing Using AppleScript
>
>> [...]
>
>
>
> This piqued my interest, so I looked up the description for this
>
> session:
>
>
>
> "Using practical examples, this session will teach you how adding an
>
> AppleScript interface to your application can provide an efficient and
>
> powerful way to create thorough automated testing.[...]"
>
>
>
> Uh-oh...
>
>
>
> As acting temporary devil's advocate, I gotta say this sounds very
>
> _wrong_. Writing tests against an application's scripting interface is
>
> fine... for testing the scripting interface. But for testing an
>
> application's business layer, aka Model, developers should be writing
>
> their automated tests directly against the Model's own APIs, classes,
>
> procedures, etc. Not several layers away; especially when those extra
>
> layers are closed, immature, and a potential source of bugs
>
> themselves.
>
>
>
> To me, it sounds suspiciously like some kind of misguided attempt to
>
> boost AppleScript and/or application scripting support amongst
>
> professional programmers - trying to improve AppleScript's "developer
>
> street cred" by sneaking or shoehorning it into professional software
>
> development processes, regardless of whether or not it's actually an
>
> appropriate use for this technology. (More knowledgeable folk are
>
> welcome to disabuse me of such concerns, of course, if they can.)
>
>
>
>
I see the WWDC session, "Automated Testing Using AppleScript," as a
>
hopeful sign.
>
I see it as another indication of Apple's commitment to AppleScript
>
and, I infer, to AppleScriptability for Cocoa.
>
In the WWDC AppleScriptability sessions of recent years, developers
>
have been encouraged to design new apps with AppleScriptability in
>
mind.
>
In that context, automated testing using AppleScript makes very good
>
sense.
>
I have, in fact, used it that way.
>
AppleScript, after all, speaks to the "Model" (the business layer).
>
(Yes, Apple has added the suites of the AppleScriptKit framework, but
>
it exposes the underlying "Model" of some view and control stuff.)
>
>
I presume that this WWDC session would not have been scheduled if Apple
>
had not found success in this technique internally.
>
>
As for improving "developer street cred," I would judge that one intent
>
is improve the credibility of serious AppleScriptability.
>
>
In a recent exchange in this list, "Jeff Handy" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> 3 - Sal has been sending subliminal messages over the web in those
>
>> X.10
>
>> camera popups
>
>
>
and John C. Welch quipped:
>
> We need to send subliminals to the Professional Applications Group ;-)
>
>
Finally, I would venture my own subliminal message to Apple's Cocoa
>
AppleScript support folks:
>
Wouldn't it be nice if AppleScriptable Cocoa apps were recordable by
>
default?
>
If that were true, then a Cocoa developer intending to support
>
AppleScriptability would not have to learn much AppleScript at all.
>
(In my own automated testing, I recently trashed a bit: I had an error
>
in my test script and I mistook it for an error in my Objective-C.)
>
The real boon of pervasive recordability would be to AppleScript Users,
>
though.
>
>
All best,
>
Don
>
_______________________________________________
>
applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
>
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
>
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
>
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.