HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
jeresig
testswarm
HISTORICAL RECORD2009–2011
jeresig / testswarm · Not publicly available

testswarm

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
5Distinct people
6Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month6 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2009-08-25 17:00:39 UTC to 2011-04-26 19:43:04 UTC.

01232009-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2009-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 commentsAug 20092009-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2009-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2009-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2009-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2009-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2009-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2009-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsJun 20102010-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsApr 2011

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Aug 20092009-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2009-09-01 00:00:00 UTC312
Sep 20092009-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2009-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20092009-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2009-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20092009-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2009-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20092009-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20102010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20102010-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20102010-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20102010-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20102010-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20102010-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20102010-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20102010-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20102010-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20102010-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20102010-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20102010-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Jan 20112011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2011-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20112011-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2011-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20112011-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2011-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20112011-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2011-05-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

6 sources
croby·Dec 31, 2010
First, great work on this implementation. I can't imagine all the work that must have gone into this. To me, this seems to only solve a corner case in the main problem of JS testing - testing the DOM without a browser. The first question that comes to mind is, is a DOM even useful in a headless browser when it comes to JS? For now, grant that we're only testing presence and manipulation of DOM elements and no CSS manipulations or accuracy -- which I'd argue is a decent case for testing. Now, testing presence and manipulation of DOM elements in the abstract isn't very useful, as different browsers might treat DOM manipulations differently. Using a headless browser that no one actually uses doesn't solve this problem. I'd see a case for this in running something like QUnit[1] test that just test JS completeness, but again, implementations d
Read the rest
iffer so testing in one environment that no one actually is using isn't good enough. The only thing that I've come up with for a solution for actually testing JavaScript in a robust, real-world way is using QUnit and Selenium[2] to define the tests, with Testswarm[3] actually running the tests. This setup allows unit tests to be run against JS by itself (QUnir), mock interactions to take place to ensure bindings work properly (Selenium), and have these executed against real browsers in a distributed manner (Testswarm). I concede that this isn't an ideal solution, and I wish there were more people working on solutions like Zombie.js that would combine all of these in one so that JS could finally be apart of our continuous integration testing. The only (sic) thing preventing this solution is that it needs to have headless, identical implementations of all the browser's JS engines and DOM parsers in order to be valid. [1] http://docs.jquery.com/Qunit [2] http://seleniumhq.org/ [3] https://github.com/jeresig/testswarm/wiki
In Zombie.js: insanely fast, full-stack, headless testing
mitchellh·Aug 26, 2009
The only problem I see here is that a business developing some web application won't want to run their code on something as public as TestSwarm where people donate their own CPUs, because it can potentially give too much away about their POSSIBLY top-secret product or top-secret upcoming features. BUT that being said, TestSwarm is open source, so a company could easiy grab the source code from github (linked below) and set it up on their own private cluster behind their corp firewall. http://github.com/jeresig/testswarm
In Mozilla Test Swarm Alpha Open

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.