[ANN] celsoft.com/Battery 0.1.1

ruby-talk
1

Sean O'Dell [mailto:sean@celsoft.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).

This does not address the fact that it 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.

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.

You may want to take a less arrogant tone; you're starting to stink
things up around here since you obviously cannot or will not read
what people have actually written in your haste to defend yourself
against attacks that don't exist. It also decreases the interest in
your library given your inept behaviour over a simple, very polite
request of someone who felt that you misspoke.

What I said was -- very clearly -- TESTS should be written to be run
in any arbitrary or random order. I didn't suggest that a testing
framework shouldn't be able to specify a particular test running
order. Frankly, I would love to be able to do:

  Test::Unit::Runner.order = :random

And *force* the tests to be run in a random order to ensure that I
am not introducing dependencies between test cases.

-austin

···

On Monday 14 June 2004 08:14, Austin Ziegler wrote:

--
austin ziegler * austin.ziegler@evault.com

2

Sean O'Dell [mailto:sean@celsoft.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).

This does not address the fact that it is a different claim than you
made initially.

What claim is that? That the tests were run in a random order? Nathaniel
himself said the tests used to run in the order Ruby listed them, which is
clearly what was happening now that I think about it. They WERE running in
what appeared to me to be a random order.

You may want to take a less arrogant tone; you're starting to stink
things up around here since you obviously cannot or will not read
what people have actually written in your haste to defend yourself
against attacks that don't exist. It also decreases the interest in
your library given your inept behaviour over a simple, very polite
request of someone who felt that you misspoke.

How about you just don't respond to my posts instead? I find you more than a
little arrogant also.

What I said was -- very clearly -- TESTS should be written to be run
in any arbitrary or random order. I didn't suggest that a testing
framework shouldn't be able to specify a particular test running
order. Frankly, I would love to be able to do:

  Test::Unit::Runner.order = :random

And *force* the tests to be run in a random order to ensure that I
am not introducing dependencies between test cases.

First of all, that's YOUR opinion. Don't force it on anyone. You can't do
that with Test/Unit right now, but you can certainly access the list of tests
in celsoft.com/Battery and randomize them if you wish. Or put them
alphabetically, etc. See how it gives you the choice?

Why are you arguing against any of this? You talk about how alphabetic is
fine, tell me to stop being arrogant, then in the very same post ask for a
specific way to order your tests! Do you want to control the ordering or
not? Make up your mind.

  Sean O'Dell

···

On Monday 14 June 2004 10:27, Austin Ziegler wrote:

> On Monday 14 June 2004 08:14, Austin Ziegler wrote: