tests/metadata.chrome - Issue 29501558: Issue 5383 - Add tests for the Chrome and Firefox packagers

Side by Side Diff

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments.

Keyboard Shortcuts

	File
u :	up to issue
m :	publish + mail comments
M :	edit review message
j / k :	jump to file after / before current file
J / K :	jump to next file with a comment after / before current file
	Side-by-side diff
i :	toggle intra-line diffs
e :	expand all comments
c :	collapse all comments
s :	toggle showing all comments
n / p :	next / previous diff chunk or comment
N / P :	next / previous comment
<Up> / <Down> :	next / previous line
<Enter> :	respond to / edit current comment
d :	mark current comment as done

	Issue
u :	up to list of issues
m :	publish + mail comments
j / k :	jump to patch after / before current patch
o / <Enter> :	open current patch in side-by-side view
i :	open current patch in unified diff view

	Issue List
j / k :	jump to issue after / before current issue
o / <Enter> :	open current issue
# :	close issue

	Comment/message editing
<Ctrl> + s or <Ctrl> + Enter :	save comment
<Esc> :	cancel edit

Side by Side Diff: tests/metadata.chrome

Issue 29501558: Issue 5383 - Add tests for the Chrome and Firefox packagers (Closed)

Patch Set: Adding pytest-cov, adhering to comments Created Aug. 14, 2017, 2:19 p.m.

Left:
Right:

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments.

Jump to:

View unified diff | Download patch

OLD	NEW
(Empty)
	1 [general]

	2 version = 1.2.3

	3 author = Eyeo GmbH
	Sebastian Noack 2017/08/14 15:20:11 "eyeo" is spelled lower-case. Alternativley, you m "eyeo" is spelled lower-case. Alternativley, you might want to use an example company name here, but if you use the real one, please spell it correctly at least. Also consider updating the tests for the Edge packager. tlucas 2017/09/06 09:04:52 Done. Show quoted text On 2017/08/14 15:20:11, Sebastian Noack wrote: > "eyeo" is spelled lower-case. Alternativley, you might want to use an example > company name here, but if you use the real one, please spell it correctly at > least. Also consider updating the tests for the Edge packager. Done.
	4 basename = adblockpluschrome

	5 permissions = tabs

	6 <all_urls>

	7 contextMenus

	8 webRequest

	9 webRequestBlocking

	10 webNavigation

	11 storage

	12 unlimitedStorage

	13 notifications

	14 backgroundScripts = ext/common.js

	15 ext/background.js

	16 lib/compat.js

	17 lib/publicSuffixList.js

	18 lib/adblockplus.js

	19 messageResponder.js

	20 background.js

	21 testScripts = ../ext/common.js

	22 ../ext/background.js

	23 ../lib/compat.js
	Sebastian Noack 2017/08/14 15:20:12 Do we need all the files listed in "backgroundScri Do we need all the files listed in "backgroundScripts" and "testScripts" to cover all code paths? The purpose of an integration test like this is not to duplicate the exact same scenario which we have in production, but to provide a minimal example that covers as many scenarios as possible. tlucas 2017/09/06 09:04:51 Done. Show quoted text On 2017/08/14 15:20:12, Sebastian Noack wrote: > Do we need all the files listed in "backgroundScripts" and "testScripts" to > cover all code paths? The purpose of an integration test like this is not to > duplicate the exact same scenario which we have in production, but to provide a > minimal example that covers as many scenarios as possible. Done.
	24 devtools = devtools.html

	25 options = options.html

	26 managedStorageSchema = managed-storage-schema.json

	27
	Sebastian Noack 2017/08/14 15:20:11 We probably should also add a [contentScripts] sec We probably should also add a [contentScripts] section and test that the scripts listed there are added to the build. It seems this is missing in the existing tests for the Edge packager as well, hence should be added there as well. tlucas 2017/09/06 09:04:51 Done, but: packagerEdge does not handle a section Show quoted text On 2017/08/14 15:20:11, Sebastian Noack wrote: > We probably should also add a [contentScripts] section and test that the scripts > listed there are added to the build. It seems this is missing in the existing > tests for the Edge packager as well, hence should be added there as well. Done, but: packagerEdge does not handle a section "contentScripts" Sebastian Noack 2017/09/06 18:00:00 Not sure what you mean but there are definitely co Show quoted text On 2017/09/06 09:04:51, tlucas wrote: > On 2017/08/14 15:20:11, Sebastian Noack wrote: > > We probably should also add a [contentScripts] section and test that the > scripts > > listed there are added to the build. It seems this is missing in the existing > > tests for the Edge packager as well, hence should be added there as well. > > Done, but: packagerEdge does not handle a section "contentScripts" Not sure what you mean but there are definitely content scripts in the Adblock Plus for Microsoft Edge builds. However, note that metadata.edge in adblockpluschrome inherits most of its options from metadata.chrome: https://hg.adblockplus.org/adblockpluschrome/file/a401d9555223/metadata.edge#l2
	28 [convert_js]

	29 lib/foo.js =

	30 lib/a.js

	31 lib/b.js

	32 lib/foo.js[module] = true

	33 lib/foo.js[injectinfomodule] = true

	34 lib/foo.js[autoload] = icons

	35

	36 [mapping]

	37 logo_44.png = chrome/icons/abp-44.png

	38 foo/logo_50.png = chrome/icons/abp-50.png

	39 icons/logo_150.png = chrome/icons/abp-150.png

	40

	41 [compat]

	42 chrome = 49.0

	43 opera = 36.0

	44

	45 [import_locales]

	46 _trans/*/test.properties = name

	47 name_devbuild

OLD	NEW

« no previous file with comments | « tests/expecteddata/manifest_gecko_True_True.rdf ('k') | tests/metadata.gecko » ('j') | tests/metadata.gecko » ('J')