Recently I’ve been working on a Firefox extension, and needed a way to test the code. While testing code is always important, it is particularly important for dynamic languages where code that hasn’t been run is more likely to be buggy.
I had not experience in how to do this for Firefox extensions, so Eric suggested I try out Mozmill. which has been quite helpful so far. There were no Ubuntu packages for it, so I’ve put some together in my PPA for anyone interested:
The packages are not quite up to the standard needed to go into Ubuntu yet (among other things, there are no man pages for the various commands), but they do work and shouldn’t eat your system.
Running mozmill tests is pretty easy, and can be done with a command like the following:
mozmill --addons=$PATH_TO_YOUR_EXTENSION \
--show-errors --test=$PATH_TO_YOUR_TESTS
This will launch an instance of Firefox using a temporary scratch profile that loads your extension, and then run your tests. The tests will run inside the Firefox instance with the results fed back to the mozmill utility. When the tests complete, the Firefox instance will exit and the scratch profile deleted.
While many of the mozmill tests that Mozilla has written are relatively high level, essentially treating it as an user input automation system, you have full access to Mozilla’s component architecture, so the framework seems well suited to lower level unit testing and functional tests.
Tests are structured as simple javascript modules, and uses conventions similar (although not identical) to many other xUnit frameworks. Any function whose name starts with “test” is a test. If the module contains “setupTest” or “teardownTest” functions, they will be called before and after each test respectively. If the module contains “setupModule” or “teardownModule” functions, they will be called before and after all the tests in the module run, respectively.
There is a “jumlib” module that you can import into your tests that provides familiar helpers like assertEquals(), etc. One difference in their behaviour to what I am used to is that they don’t interrupt the test on failure. On the plus side, if you’ve got a bunch of unrelated assertions at the end of your test, you will see all the failures rather than just the first. On the down side, you don’t get a stack trace with the failure so it can be difficult to tell which assertion failed unless you’ve provided a comment to go with each assertion.
The framework seems to do the job pretty well, although the output is a little cluttered. It has the facility to publish its test results to a special dashboard web application, but I’d prefer something easier to manage on the command line.
