From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2004-06-12T06:13:26+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] celsoft.com/Battery 0.1.1

On Friday 11 June 2004 13:19, Michael Campbell wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:09:09 +0900, Sean O'Dell <sean@celsoft.com> wrote:
> > The order shouldn't matter, but it's better to have control over the
> > order rather than have them run in an arbitrary order selected by the
> > library. With control, you could randomize the list of tests and run the
> > randomized battery n times.  When the tests are alphabetical, they're
> > always run in alphabetical order.
>
> How is alphabetical order any better/worse than "the order they are
> added to their batteries" in this regard?  Or does your framework
> allow order randomization?

Tests are stored as an array of blocks and are called in the order they appear 
in the array.  I just now added an accessor method to the @tests instance 
variable so you can arrange the order anyway you want..

But even before that change, you could create a number of batteries and call 
battery#add_test in any order you prefer to create your own run order for 
each battery, then call battery#run for each, using a common report object, 
and get one big final report for it all.

	Sean O'Dell