Add questionnaire to appendix

Author: geemanjs

Dissertate.cls

@@ -246,6 +246,7 @@
 \renewcommand{\frontmatter}{
 	\input{frontmatter/personalize}
 	\maketitle
+	\includepdf[pages={1,2}]{figures/james_gee_project_definition_v2.pdf}
 	 % \copyrightpage
 	\abstractpage
 	\tableofcontents
@@ -326,8 +327,8 @@
     \addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{References}
 		\begin{appendices}
         \input{chapters/appendixA}
-        \input{chapters/appendixB}
         \input{chapters/appendixC}
+        \input{chapters/appendixD}
     \end{appendices}
     \input{endmatter/colophon}
 }

chapters/3-a11y-tool.tex

@@ -348,6 +348,72 @@ \subsubsection{Bootstrapping the browser}
 at development time through a script tag. Users could add this to the html
 file they wished to test.
 
+\subsection{Testing}
+\subsubsection{Enabling others}
+With the tool mainly exposing a means for others to plugin and create custom
+accessibility `checkers' it was important to demonstrate how developers can
+write tests to confirm their checkers. With this in mind a small collection
+of utility methods were created. The aim of these was to reduce the amount of
+boiler plate required to write the tests. For example when creating dom
+elements a test initially looked similar \ref{lst:before}.
+\begin{lstlisting}[label={lst:before}]
+  it('should expect only A elements: Negative test', () => {
+    const actual = AChecker.expects(mount(<li></li>).getDOMNode());
+    expect(actual).toBe(false);
+  });
+\end{lstlisting}
+
+But I kept on finding I was forgetting to add the .getDomNode on the end of
+the call to create the component. This therefore became a candidate for
+extraction. The effect was a much cleaner syntax as demonstrated below.
+
+\begin{lstlisting}[label={lst:before}]
+  it('should expect only A elements: Negative test', () => {
+    const actual = AChecker.expects(render(<li></li>));
+    expect(actual).toBe(false);
+  });
+\end{lstlisting}
+
+
+\subsubsection{The A11Y tool}
+Unit testing of the tool was completed using Jest \citep{jest} with jasmine
+\citep{jasmine}. These are two frameworks which interlink well
+together and offer a simple means to drive web based APIs. Below is a snippet
+of some tests for a HREF Checker whos purpose is to check anchor html elements
+for correct href attributes.
+
+Note how each test increases the functionality expected of the checker which
+enables checking of regressions every time it is excuted. This model was
+applied accross most of the code base.
+
+\begin{lstlisting}
+describe('The Link Checker should', () => {
+
+  it('should expect only A elements: Negative test', () => {
+    const actual = AChecker.expects(render(<li></li>));
+    expect(actual).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  it('should expect only A elements: Positive test', () => {
+    const actual = AChecker.expects(render(<a></a>));
+    expect(actual).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it('should return an error when there is no HREF present', () => {
+    const HTML = render(<a></a>);
+    const actual = new AChecker().execute(HTML);
+    expect(actual.detail.moreInfo).toBe('No HREF present');
+  });
+
+  it('should return an error when the HREF is only a #', () => {
+    const HTML = render(<a href="#"></a>);
+    const actual = new AChecker().execute(HTML);
+    expect(actual.detail.moreInfo).toBe('HREF should go to an anchor on the page. \'#\' is not one of these!');
+  });
+
+  ...
+\end{lstlisting}
+
 
 %\newthought{Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet},
 %

chapters/4-evaluation.tex

@@ -167,7 +167,10 @@ \subsection{Meeting requirements}
 \subsection{Next time}
 Due to the lost time I was only able to complete two iterations on the A11Y
 Tool in comparison to the six on the A11Y Guide. I feel this reflects in both
-the report and product produced. The design feels sound, but the product
+the report and product produced. One of the areas I accumulated technical
+debt in was the testing of the tool. I did some manual testing of the A11Y
+Browser component, and wrote unit tests around the checkers but very
+little of the A11Y Core. To me the design feels sound, but the product
 relatively immature.
 
 If I were to deliver this project again with the same incidents and time

chapters/appendixB.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+\chapter{Questionnaire}
+\includepdf[pages={1,2,3}]{figures/questionnaire.pdf}

chapters/appendixD.tex

@@ -319,6 +319,20 @@ @misc{bicycle
   year = {2016},
   note = "[Online; accessed 21-May-2017]"
 }
+@misc{jest,
+  author = {Facebook},
+  title = {{Testing with Jest}},
+  howpublished = "\url{https://facebook.github.io/jest/}",
+  year = {2017},
+  note = "[Online; accessed 23-May-2017]"
+}
+@misc{jasmine,
+  author = {Jasmine},
+  title = {{BDD Testing in Javascript}},
+  howpublished = "\url{https://jasmine.github.io/}",
+  year = {2016},
+  note = "[Online; accessed 21-May-2017]"
+}