From: Holden Glova <dsafari@...>
Date: 2003-01-10T14:58:36+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit fails w/no tests [was: testunit 0.1.6 problems]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:05, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > From: "Bil Kleb" <W.L.Kleb@larc.nasa.gov>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 7:56 PM
> >
> > > [..] 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  [..]
> > >
> > > [..] I'd like to hear some more on this first (if there are any other
> > > opinions).
> >
> > I like the failure when you have an empty TestCase for the XP YAGNI
> > reason you stated above.
>
> +1 to failure, to keep health of test.
> Empty testcase is exactly a bug of the testcase.
>
> Regards,
> // NaHi

I agree with NaHi. I like having TestUnit fail when I have an empty TestCase 
for the reason that NaHi has mentioned.

- -- 
Signed,
Holden Glova
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+HmEr0X8w8X71zPcRAt8wAJ9KgeD/vT5oI+m0o1FE9cjP0qdcoACfX+nD
jENJav9xJpnOTnxhmjg1ur0=
=12HF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----