From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2003-01-11T08:59:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit fails w/no tests [was: testunit 0.1.6 problems]

On Saturday, January 11, 2003, 2:51:57 AM, nathaniel wrote:

>> 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.

I'm happy with that.  It's not the default behaviour I would prefer,
but it's well thought out, it's overridable within the framework, and
it's theoretically sound :)

Gavin