Puffin Automation Framework (PAF) query

[Ben McGinnes]

Alan Kennedy(alanmk at hotmail.com)@Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:09:00AM +0000:
> 
> What you're discovering is the puffin author's inappropriate use of
> XML.
> 
> Although the documents you're using may be well-formed, the author has
> imposed other implicit constraints on the contents of the XML files
> used for configuration. And since these constraints are not
> documented, you'll only find them in one of two ways:
> 
> 1. Tripping over them, as you have just done.
> 2. Reading the source.

Urgh!  That is terrible ...

> Apart from using a DOM to store the test results (Ugh!), the other
> great XML sin committed in Puffin is that old canard: trying to use
> XML as a programming language.

Whereas the article on the IBM developerWorks site implied (or perhaps
that should read "impLIEd") that the XML was just used as a method of
parsing configuration parameters.  

<baleful look="in the direction of puffinhome.org">*sigh*</baleful>

> For example, I just pulled this
> fragment out of one of the sample test plans that comes with puffin:
> 
> <repeat name="repeat3" count="2">
>    <task name="makePurchase" dependsList="makeDecision">
>       <action name="generateSelectionCount"/>
>       <action name="addItemToCart"/>
>       <action name="updateCurrentSelection"/>
>       <action name="showCart"/>
>       <action name="getUpdatedInventory"/>
>    </task>
> </repeat>

Which is exactly the type of thing I found the conflict with, with the
action name tags above and the actual test actions in the action.xml
file.

> XML as a programming language is a dead-end!

I quite agree.  I think the program was named after the wrong bird ...
dodo might be more appropriate.

> I think it would be useful for you to re-read the last message in that
> thread, from John J. Lee. Points of note include

Yeah, that thread has some very useful info in it.  Thanks for pointing
it out.

> 1. Webunit may be a better choice than Puffin (I can't say: I haven't
> used it).

I'm looking into WebUnit now (the mechanicalcat.net version, not the
other one mentioned in the thread).

> 2. If your requirements are as simple as indicated, then you may find
> it far more productive to roll your own using the python standard
> library. This should only take a few hours for someone familiar with
> the standard library (as your esteemed colleague certainly is :-).
> Alternatively, try a Google Groups search of c.l.py for "automate
> httplib" or "automate form".

Looks like that's what WebUnit is geared towards, but it may need some
tweaking for our work anyway.  Looks like WebUnit's one of the primary
candidates at the moment and small enough to be easily expanded on if
necessary.

> If time is of the essence, and nobody on the project has the
> time/experience for the task, I am available for contract work at
> reasonable rates ;-)

Heh.  :)


Regards,
Ben