From: Tom Clarke <tom@...2i.com>
Date: 2003-01-09T11:12:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit fails w/no tests [was: testunit 0.1.6 problems]


They could be described as a separate category, a todo perhaps.
    3 Errors, 5 Failures and 2 Todos.
    
-Tom    

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 11:08:26AM +0900, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
> ----- 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
> 
> 
>