On 18 déc. 03, at 10:43, Frank Shearar wrote:

>>> In a second step, I would like to see if and how what romain robbes 
>>> did
>>> with the Unit Browser can be used (I would
>>> remove the Lint box from the browser for example).
>
> I must confess that I really appreciate the Lint box being right there 
> in
> the browser. It'll run a full lint on just the class I'm working on, I
> don't have to have a full lint browser lurking on my desktop (one more
> window to clutter up my workspace), the lint runs in its own process, 
> unlike
> the lint browser and, most importantly, because it's so trivial to run 
> the
> lint (just a single click and then it gets out of my way) I can get on 
> with
> writing a new test.

I AGREE :) but I was thinking in terms of what is the minimal changes 
that
we have to do so that people who does not care about tests and Lint
do not get mad. :))


>
>>> I would like to add in the image the corresponding tests that marcus
>>> collected and produce a removal script (which is trivial).
>>> Before doing that I would like to know your point of view.
>>
>> Put my vote for BrowseUnit, it's just perfect for the task.
>> And I looove using it.
>
> Yep yep! First you get test infected and then you get BrowseUnit 
> infected.
>
> The only quibble I have with BrowseUnit is that it seems from elsewhere
> in the image that the "testing" category is meant for messages like 
> #isFoo
> rather than unit tests. TestCase has categories like "Private" and
> "Running",
> all neatly capitalised, and then there's "testing". But that's not 
> exactly
> a big issue :)
>
> frank
>
>
>