From: Bret Pettichord <bret@...>
Date: 2004-04-17T01:34:27+09:00
Subject: Re: test / unit question:  add "Warnings" to Failures and  Errors

At 09:29 PM 4/15/2004, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
>When I'm coding test-first, there's a big difference to me between running 
>my tests and getting an error (unexpected), and running my tests and 
>getting a failure (expected).

I guess i don't see this. I usually just notice what the error/failure is 
(oh, i have a missing method foo.bar; oh, the return value of foo.baz is 
incorrect) and then do what i have to do. I pay attention to the actual 
error message and stack trace, not to the error/failure distinction.

When i write test-first, i sometimes expect to see errors and sometimes 
expect to see failures. For example, if i write a test for a class that 
doesn't exist yet, the first time i run it, i will see an error. Then if 
put in a stub of a class, i might see failures because it's methods don't 
return the right thing. So at different times i expect both errors and 
failures.

In other words, my expectation is that i will see red (errors/failures) 
until i have a half-baked implementation and then green while i refactor it.

Bret


______________________________________
  Bret Pettichord, Software Tester
    Consultant - www.pettichord.com
    Author - www.testinglessons.com
    Blogger - www.io.com/~wazmo/blog

    Homebrew Automation Seminar
    April 30, Austin, Texas
    www.pettichord.com/training.html