[ENH] SUnit-expected-failures-jf

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Fri Aug 1 15:57:58 UTC 2003


I might find it interesting. Please keep us posted.

Daniel

Julian Fitzell <julian at beta4.com> wrote:
> Hmm... we're using TestBrowser and it doesn't seem to do anything 
> special about TestSuites - just lets you run categories of tests easily.
> 
> I suppose you could set up a TestSuite for failing tests, but unless you 
> actually remove the tests from their proper TestCases, running that 
> TestCase will still cause errors.  Then I suppose you can create a 
> TestSuite for passing tests, but you have still lost the flexibility of 
> being able to run individual TestCases.  And I don't like the idea of 
> actually removing the test from the TestCase because you don't know 
> which TestCase it needs to go back to when it passes again.
> 
> It feels like this is another case where we need meta-information 
> associated with methods - but the best workaround I know of is to have 
> another method hold the meta-information.
> 
> Still - better tools would make a big difference however we do it - when 
> I have time to look at this further, I would definitely look at the 
> testing UIs.  Is there any interest in having a solution to this problem 
> or will I just keep it in the realm of Personal Hacks? :)
> 
> Julian
> 
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > I mean a way of naming and storing a bunch of related tests. TestSuite
> > gives you the test composition abstraction, you need to store a
> > TestSuite for the "expected failures", and then separately run the
> > "expected failure" and the "regression" (everything else) parts of the
> > test suite.
> > 
> > This would require a little supporting UI and process to use, but it
> > doesn't seem to require a lot of work. I don't know but I've been told
> > that TestBrowser allows one to partition the tests more logically. Maybe
> > it supports TestSuites somehow.
> > 
> > Daniel
> > 
> > Julian Fitzell <julian at beta4.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>Can you expand more on what you mean by organizing structure?
> >>
> >>Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> >>
> >>>I think the need you're addressing could be better met with some
> >>>organizing structure on top of TestCases... and that would be useful. I
> >>>remember the mess it was to find a few score of RB TestCases not
> >>>working, and then finding out that they are actually in implicit layers
> >>>- the parser should be fixed before the refactorings, and so forth.
> >>>Would have been nice if the layers were explicit.
> >>>
> >>>Daniel
> > 
> >



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list