From: Its Me <itsme213@...>
Date: 2004-04-16T04:59:09+09:00
Subject: Re: test / unit question:  add "Warnings" to Failures and  Errors


"Bret Pettichord" <bret@pettichord.com> wrote ...
> At 10:29 AM 4/15/2004, Its Me wrote:
> >124 tests, 300 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors,
> >  26 warnings (15 disabled, 8 skip, 2 todo, 1 other)
> >..
>
> I argue against this.
>
> It's key to reduce visual clutter when you are running tests. They should
> be red or green. .

True. A very succinct _view_ of the results is useful e.g. a binary
red/green.

> You shouldn't have to think about what you are seeing. The
> example above is confusing

But what about when you _want_ to think about what you are seeing?

Like how many tests? How many assertions? Which test passed or failed? Why
_exclude_ information about ineffective tests (disabled, skipped, or
missing) from the results themselves? When I need to look deeper than the
red/green on a gven test run, information about missing tests can be as
useful as any of the other existing bits of more detailed test results.

Would be nice if was available (despite to-do lists and coverage tools). It
could get used a lot more than to-do lists or Rdoc comments about needed
tests.