[chris_wot]

Don't know about this being nitpicking or not. Sounds like a terminology problem. What you are essentially doing is mocking out the XHR requests and performing unit tests on the client side. An excellent thing to do, but you aren't really testing that individual modules are able to interact together correctly, which is the purpose of integration testing.

[bnorton]

This is the point I was getting at. Not that this style is bad or good (I think it is good) but that these aren't tests that span modules.

It is common practice (and a good one) to mock the server from the JS perspective as to isolate it, but I dont think this in itself gives it integration test status.

[kjbekkelund]

Okey, so let's just say that I'm testing in a way I haven't seen mentioned by anyone with regards to Backbone.js. The point is the execution, not the naming.

Btw, if anyone has been talking about / doing similar testing of Backbone.js, I would love to share some insights and ideas.

[bnorton]

http://blog.involver.com/2012/01/26/testing-backbone-js-best...

[chris_wot]

Hey, not saying ths isn't awesome :-) in fact, what you've done here must give you a lot of confidence in your codebase.

However, bugs can creep in when two modules interact. From another comment it sounds like you are seeing how modules interact with each other, I guess the reason I point out the terminology issues are because folks on here are curious about testing and there's a lot of confusion around ths area already.