On Mar 27, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

>> So the circle is closing... exceptions and preconditions again! ;-)
>> So Andreas, want to introduce some ResourceNotAvailable and ToDo  
>> exceptions ;-) , or do we get away without them and just throw a  
>> PreconditionError that I was suggesting in an earlier thread?
>
> It's all about communicating the test writer's intent to the test  
> runner. And I think I'd prefer "x tests, y passed, z skipped" as  
> Andreas suggested.

Right. I still fail to see why this wouldn't be possible using  
preconditions and basically putting all tests into the skipped  
section where the precondition fails.

>
>> As said in the previous mail ToDo's could be easily figured by  
>> just sticking to the convention not to even start the method under  
>> test, which is a good idea in that case anyhow.
>> As a nice effect one would not even have to touch the tests later  
>> when the method under test gets implemented.
>
> However, you wouldn't get the "unexpected success" mentioned in the  
> link above.

Hmmm, right!
Maybe these to-do tests should not be treated by using failed  
preconditions but by some idiom like:

FooTest >> testBar

	self should: [Foo new bar]  
stillRaiseButIIDoPromiseToFitxItReallySoonNowTM: Error
						
TestRunner could be tweaked so that failing tests sending above  
message - or a shorter one ;-) - land in a special section, which  
would be "not yet implemented" / "unexpected success" respectively.

Just trying to keep the number of concepts small.

Cheers,

Markus