From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2004-06-15T03:22:23+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] celsoft.com/Battery 0.1.1

On Monday 14 June 2004 11:06, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> Sean O'Dell [mailto:sean@celsoft.com] :
> >> 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.
>
> I'm not forcing it on anyone[1], but it isn't my opinion only. Just
> within the Ruby community, look how many people have suggested that
> tests should be considered independent of one another. I would be
> surprised if unit testing gurus would argue otherwise, except in
> very specific and very limited cases.

Look how many people wish they could order their tests.

> > 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?
>
> Except that cs/Battery is, except for this one "feature", bereft of
> any other usable functionality. As I said in another email: your
> time would have been better spent providing Nathaniel with a patch
> to do what you want here: (1) alternate outputters -- e.g., YAML or
> XML and (2) user-choosable test execution ordering. This would have
> been far better than adding another test framework to the Ruby world
> that doesn't actually have anything *useful* to offer over
> Test::Unit.

I only use celsoft.com/Battery when I do unit testing, although I don't really 
do unit testing that much, and it works fantastic for me with it does.  The 
one thing I've really found useful is the YAML output.  I actually set up a 
little battery of tests for a server I admin that I execute remotely over 
ssh, and I have several different actions taken based on the output parsed 
back on my end.  But also, I find that being able to define a test as a proc, 
and being able to add that one test to any number of batteries, lets me run 
the same test in several different series.  So, while I can understand your 
ire and wishing celsoft.com/Battery were bereft of functionality, I know it's 
just you getting personal again.

> > 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.
>
> I'm arguing against your attitude, mostly, but with a strong helping
> of trying to educate the obstinate ignoramus (that's you). In the
> last few weeks, you've been exceedingly rude, obstinate, arrogant,
> and ignorant to the point of turning people off. You may not care,
> but you are mocked elseplace for your attitude and arrogance. I have
> seen little indication that what you say, do, or write is taken
> seriously at all -- I know that I don't, because you have
> demonstrated that not only don't you know what you're talking about,
> but you're arrogant about it to boot. Ugly? Yeah. But I'm calling it
> as I see it.

Do you honestly think this is high school, and I'm worried if the cool crowd 
is making fun of my in gym class?  I can't believe I'm even responding to you 
this is so entirely juvenile.

	Sean