I don’t understand this part: If a test is about testing the WYSIWYG editor it must test it with CK for sure! Changing that would break the test. And in this case the test module must install CK asa a dependency.
I guess your question is more: when should we test with the WYSIWYG editor rather than test with the wiki editor? I think that all our func tests should test with the wiki editor, except for modules contributing extensions to CK. For example the Mentions module is probably contributing support for@
and thus it needs to draw the WYSIWYG editor as a dep in its tests to test that feature.
What we need is a test suite for our WYSIWYG editor. @mflorea: the other day we looked for CK tests with Simon and we couldn’t find any. How do we ensure that the WYSIWYG editor is working fine today for all the features it proposes? I know that CK is itself tested but we have substantial changes for it with lots of plugins/etc. Where is this tested? Also, it might still be good to have some tests to verify WYSIWYG behaviors for bugs that were raised in the past (like copy pasting images, etc), even if they are supposed to be tested by CK so that we can control our quality (I’m not saying to duplicate CK’s test suite but to have some well-chosen tests for features that can be more easily broken, possibly across browsers too).
We need to keep some smoke tests to test the full flavor but only smoke tests (i.e. only a few designed to be smoke tests).If only to verify that the XS starts correctly.