From: Dmitri Colebatch <dim@...>
Date: 2003-01-09T11:25:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit fails w/no tests [was: testunit 0.1.6 problems]

Hey all,

new to ruby and to the list, but this seems as good a thread as any to join
in with (o:

> > > In my mind, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with an empty unit test.

absolutely.  imho testunit should resemble junit - two reasons why, I know
junit (o:  but also (correct me if I'm wrong) junit is the de facto standard
in open source unit testing, yes?

> > 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.

that argument then leads to "testing the test" - saying that

    def test_foo
    end

is a failing test is the same as saying that

    def test_bar
        bar = Bar.new("bar")
    end

fails because it should really be

    def test_bar
        bar = Bar.new("bar")
        assert_equal("bar", b.bar, "bar not bar")
    end

but like you say - its a moot point really, all tests should check
something.

cheers
dim