From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2002-03-14T08:42:59+09:00
Subject: Re: testunit - setup -> set_up ?

"Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:

> dave@thomases.com [mailto:dave@thomases.com] wrote:
> 
> > I agree with you about aliasing.
> > 
> > I'd suggest simply going with #setup and dropping #set_up.
> > 
> > Like it or not, xUnit is pretty much the de facto framework 
> > now. Bucking that will inevitably bite people. While set_up 
> > might be correct, #setup is probably right.
> 
> Ah, but JUnit uses setUp... two words. So which is the "xUnit way?"

Sigh... good point.

OK, how about this.

he idea of having these set[-][uU]p methods called by coincidence has
always bugged me. Instead, what about

   class MyTest < Test::Case

     def initialize(*args)
       super

       overall_setup do
         x
         y
       end

       per_test_setup do
         a
         b
       end
     end

     def test_...


That makes it explicit.


Dave