From: "Berger, Daniel" <djberge@...>
Date: 2003-01-09T06:09:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit fails w/no tests [was: testunit 0.1.6 problems]

Hi Nathanial,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws [mailto:nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws] 
> Why is it misleading?

I initially thought this meant I had done something wrong in setup and
teardown.  Probably a dumb assumption, but hey, this is me we're talking
about.
 
> The one thing about it that I think IS misleading is that, if 
> you bundle up an empty TestCase with a non-empty TestCase and 
> run them together, you won't get a failure anymore - the 
> check is only made at the runner level. I need to at the very 
> least make that consistent.

I'll agree with that.
 
> > and two, it's inconvenient. I haven't done
> > it myself, but I would do this: decide my tests for a certain 
> > class are no longer valid, delete them, but leave the shell 
> > (the TestCase) there so I can create some new ones in the future.
> 
> I both agree and disagree with the inconvenience of it. Yes, 
> if you keep around a lot of unused TestCases, it would be 
> somewhat inconvenient, but I'm not sure that's a practice 
> that ought to be supported. As an XP'er, I'd say, "YAGNI!" 
> and delete the TestCase as soon as it's empty, knowing that 
> it's cinchy to add back. If I know that I'm going to add 
> another test to that TestCase in a minute, then the failure 
> is a boon, because it keeps me from getting distracted and 
> forgetting to add the test.

I like to start with an empty test case to make sure the "require" for
whatever module I'm working on works, usually because I need to mess around
with "$:", as well make sure the constructor doesn't bomb (assuming I have
one in setup).  Maybe that's not good XP, but that's how I do it.
 
> > I suggest emitting a warning in hte event of an empty
> > TestCase.
> 
> Warnings in tests are too mushy for me; I want red or green, 
> true or false. I'm much more inclined to drop the failure 
> altogether than to add the concept of warnings to the framework.

I could live with a warning, but understand your POV.
 
> I'm leaning towards leaving the failure, but making it more 
> consistent as noted above. My mind isn't really made up yet, 
> though, so I'd like to hear some more on this first (if there 
> are any other opinions). I'm also going to try to dig up the 
> original request for this feature to present "the other 
> side", as it were.
> 
> Thanks for listenin'

I can live with it either way, whatever you decide.  I just *prefer* not to
have the error. :)

Just my .02

Regards,

Dan