From: Martin DeMello <martindemello@...>
Date: 2003-01-12T05:46:57+09:00
Subject: Re: Test::Unit fails w/no tests [was: testunit 0.1.6 problems]

nathaniel@nospamtalbott.ws wrote:
> 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.

Wouldn't enumerating them separately give you the best of both worlds?
Something like

2 failures, 3 empty tests

should keep everyone happy.

martin