On 17 déc. 03, at 23:43, Phil Hargett wrote:

> I agree, BrowseUnit does a nice job of meeting the need.
>
> Stef, if there's something missing from BrowseUnit, perhaps you should 
> elaborate.  Otherwise, I think you'll find some agreement (at least 
> among a few of us ;) ), and a package that already satisfies the 
> requirements.

The Lint button is too much and I should really check what is done 
exactly in terms of categorising the methods and the test subclasses. I 
can tell you that I really had in mind to reuse as much as possible of 
it :))))

Stef

>
> On Dec 17, 2003, at 3:42 PM, German Morales wrote:
>
>> I fail to see why the BrowseUnit package by Romain Robbes doesn't meet
>> your requirements.
>>
>> Tests are not only close to the class their tests, but close to the 
>> method
>> they test.
>>
>> Also, it creates the tests classes, puts them in a category, and even 
>> name
>> the test after the method it tests when needed, all by itself.
>>
>> Perhaps the convention he uses doesn't match *exactly* what you want, 
>> but
>> I'm almost sure that is more or less as the example you've shown.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> German Morales
>>
>>
>
>