From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2004-06-15T01:31:48+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] celsoft.com/Battery 0.1.1

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