Sean O'Dell [mailto:sean@celsoft.com]:
When you're given no choice, as far as you're concerned as a
library user, they're run in an arbitrary order. [...]
This is a different claim than you made initially.
As far as I'm concerned, the order that tests are run is a black
box.
As they should be. Tests should be independent of one another and
not depend on any particular ordering.
Quite honestly, I see no compelling reason to use cs/Battery over
Test::Unit, as cs/Battery does not offer the rich set of assertions
that Test::Unit does. IMO, a better alternative would have been to
modify Test::Unit to support (1) alternative outputters (much like
CppUnit does) and (2) alternative ordering mechanisms.
-austin
···
--
austin ziegler * austin.ziegler@evault.com
Sean O'Dell [mailto:sean@celsoft.com]:
> When you're given no choice, as far as you're concerned as a
> library user, they're run in an arbitrary order. [...]
This is a different claim than you made initially.
I learned that tests were run alphabetically, but originally I thought they
were run randomly, according to the order Ruby returned them (which I think
was actually correct, if I read Nathaniel right). Either way, I felt the
ordering was arbitrary. I didn't say random because I wasn't sure it was
random, I just knew that the order was, as far as I was concerned, in some
arbitrary order (decided not by me for reasons so vague I don't even know
them and can't interpolate them from the docs).
> As far as I'm concerned, the order that tests are run is a black
> box.
As they should be. Tests should be independent of one another and
not depend on any particular ordering.
I run my tests in any order I want. I suspect Test/Unit will also be allowing
controlled test orders, so you might want to try and convince Nathaniel it's
a bad idea before he implements it. You might be able to stop him, but my
library isn't changing.
Sean O'Dell
···
On Monday 14 June 2004 08:14, Austin Ziegler wrote: