From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2003-01-10T13:16:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit fails w/no tests [was: testunit 0.1.6 problems]

On Friday, January 10, 2003, 3:01:45 PM, nathaniel wrote:

>> One reason for not deleting a TestCase is that if you *do* 
>> think you are going to use it soon-ish, then it's a hassle to 
>> delete files from a CVS repository and reuse them later.

> Right. But is the failure such a bad thing in that case? It's just
> reminding you to get back to it.

But it's distracting you from real failures as well.

My main issue is that (no test -> failure) is not theoretically sound.
A failure, contrary to what I said before, is an assertion that, well,
fails.  (I said it was an uncaught exception, which is an error.)

So if there is no test, and therefore no assertion, there is no
failure.

Either that, or the definition of failure changes.  It is broadened,
therefore weakened.  The definition as it stands makes perfect
unit-testing sense.

This is all pretty high-falutin' theory.  But I think software should
be theoretically sound, especially frameworks.  We all know that dodgy
hacks can come back to haunt us.  Well, dodging the theory is a small
step down that road.

Sorry for harping on about it.  It's good that lots of people have
chimed in.  I'll leave it alone, now, and won't complain about
whatever decision you make.

Cheers,
Gavin