From: Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
Date: 2006-05-23T07:29:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit Patch that allows test methods to be executed sequentially


On May 22, 2006, at 11:58 AM, bpettichord@gmail.com wrote:

> Ryan sez:
>> I do it all the time. The simple solution is to put a "test_dummy" in
>> the superclass. Really not hard and a fair tradeoff to have the right
>> code in the right place.
>
> This has been suggested before to the Watir users. Many of them don't
> like the fact that this results in an incorrect test case count.

Quite frankly, I don't really care that they consider it to output an  
"incorrect" test case count. It works for many of us and is a fair  
tradeoff. I'd much rather have the requirement removed from test/unit  
outright, but I didn't design test/unit and I too disagree with  
requiring it (but! see below!). I however disagree wholly with making  
test/unit MORE complex under all but the most optimal of returns. I  
don't think your suggestion matches that requirement esp since it  
clearly violates the notion of a unit test.

That said, I think your proposal has merit, just not where you want  
it. I did just poke around a bit more and figgered something out that  
might be satisfactory for the both of us:

501 % ruby -rtest/unit -e 'class X < Test::Unit::TestCase; end'
Loaded suite -e
Started
F
Finished in 0.005603 seconds.

   1) Failure:
default_test(X) [-e:1]:
No tests were specified.

1 tests, 1 assertions, 1 failures, 0 errors
502 % ruby -rtest/unit -e 'class X < Test::Unit::TestCase; def  
default_test; end; end'
Loaded suite -e
Started
.
Finished in 0.00228 seconds.

1 tests, 0 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors

YES, it still has an incorrect test count, but it also doesn't have  
as much "smell" as "test_dummy" in an abstract testcase.

>> I disagree. As I said before, we need less code, not more. (I do
>> wholly agree that test/unit needs refactoring, but to make it thinner
>> not thicker)
>
> My suggestion is only to add a new seam, but i guess that amounts to a
> bit of code. But only a bit.
>
> Another reason that i packaged the code as a mod to TestCase directly
> is that it makes it easier for people with large test suites to  
> plug it
> in. So it is more convenient for Watir users than a subclass.

How is it more convenient?

require 'monkeypatch'
class BlahTest < Test::Unit::TestCase
   execute :sequentially
   ...
end

vs

require 'systemtestcase'
class BlahTest < SystemTestCase
   execute :sequentially
   ...
end

Do you really see either of those as more convenient than the other?

> However, I'm not quite sure whether you are saying
> a) i (ryan) would prefer to do it a different way
> b) i don't want to see this change made to the core test/unit code in
> ruby
> c) it is a bad idea for anyone to use this mod

> I understand (a). I can see your reasons for (b), and actually have
> been eager for feedback on whether this might be a good idea or not.
> (although i did get some positive noises offline from Nathaniel  
> Talbott
> -- the test/unit author). i can see no grounds for (c) -- if this is
> your position, please elaborate.

(a) obviously, but on the grounds of (b). I've purposefully not  
addressed (c) as I think its been addressed (several times) before,  
but I also agree that it is a bad idea to use the mod.

--
ryand-ruby@zenspider.com - Seattle.rb - http://www.zenspider.com/ 
seattle.rb
http://blog.zenspider.com/ - http://rubyforge.org/projects/ruby2c