From: dblack@...
Date: 2003-01-10T21:47:22+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit fails w/no tests [was: testunit 0.1.6 problems]

Hi --

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws wrote:

> dblack@candle.superlink.net wrote:
>
> > Could there be a way to hook or override the default test, so
> > that one could relatively easily change the behavior?
>
> Sure, it's trivial, and that's really at the core of the matter: where
> do you introduce the overhead? Do you introduce it for those who want a
> failure whenever they have an empty TestCase? Or, do you introduce it
> for those who want to keep empty TestCases around? I think it has to be
> one or the other - one set of users will have a bit of extra work, and
> the other group of users will be able to start working out of the box.
>
> To be honest, I still lean towards making the default to fail on an
> empty TestCase. What's a failure? It's an invitation to implement.
> What's an empty TestCase? It's an invitation to implement (as Dave
> pointed out in ruby-talk:60964). If you want to silence the invitation,
> you just add an empty test to match your empty test case.

I think what I had in mind was a little different.  Let's say every
empty test actually runs the #no_test method.  That means that this:

  def test_1
  end

and this:

  def test_1
    no_test
  end

are effectively the same.

The idea would then be: by overriding #no_test, you could change the
behavior, without having to change all the empty tests themselves.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav