From: nathaniel@...
Date: 2003-01-11T00:51:57+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit fails w/no tests [was: testunit 0.1.6 problems]

Gavin Sinclair [mailto:gsinclair@soyabean.com.au] wrote:

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

Only if it's not a real failure itself. My plan now is to implement it
in terms of a regular assertion, so that it is, indeed, a real boy, er,
failure :-)

As I just wrote to David, you'd be able to override the behavior very
easily on a global basis, so if you didn't want a real failure for an
empty, you could just require a file and not get it. I hope that's a
good compromise.


> 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.

So we just say that there is a default test that runs a default
assertion, and that that assertion is by default a #flunk. Does that
make it a bit more theoretically sound? Although I can see that some
would not think there should be a default test at all, which is where
we'll just have to agree to disagree.


> This is all pretty high-falutin' theory.

Yup, and I'm lovin' it! I enjoy having a good theoretical discussion,
especially when it feeds in to something practical I need to do :-)


> 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.

Agreed on all points. I think matz is a great example of being careful
when tweaking a framework, and I'm doing my best to follow his example.
Everyone who's commented here has helped me out a lot. While some still
might not like it 100%, I think the direction I'm planning on taking now
is _a_lot_ more sound than what I was planning on doing originally.


> 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.

Hey, thanks for harping! I hope you do the same for any other things
that come up.


Nathaniel

<:((><
+ - -
| RoleModel Software, Inc.
| EQUIP VI