From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2003-01-09T11:08:26+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit fails w/no tests [was: testunit 0.1.6 problems]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Campbell" <michael_s_campbell@yahoo.com>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: Test::Unit fails w/no tests [was: testunit 0.1.6 problems]


> > In my mind, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with an empty unit test.
>
> I tend to agree with Gavin that an empty unit test shouldn't be flagged as
a
> failure.  I use them for placeholders too.

I can see that. But playing devil's advocate, I think I see
the reasoning the other way also.

Aren't the XPers always saying, "Write the test first. Since the code
doesn't exist yet, the test will fail." A new test, then, fails by
default. This was perhaps someone's thinking. But I haven't read this
whole thread.

I could live with it either way. <confession>I don't test the way I should.
</confession>

Hal