> Hi Romain,
>
>>
>> In your example you decomposed a unit test, but do you think you can 
>> compose
>> them ? what would that be useful for ?
>>
>> 	Romain
>
> If the QA-departments in real factories worked like xunit tests,
> they would destroy their quality assured products immediately
> after the test:
> "Can anybody please call the garbage collector? No way that we
> give our tested component to another production line, where a
> more complex object could be built out of it and tested and ..."
>
> Look at e.g. SMSqueakMap. It is quite a complex object. Its list of 
> variables includes:
> 'packages accounts objects categories dir transactionCounter 
> firstTransactionNumber daysBacklog ...'
>
> So for testing
> 	SMSqueakMap >> accountWithName: aName
> it would be nice to have a map without accounts and one map with some 
> added.
>
> So if you had a method example for creating a SMSqueakMap,
> and one building on this for adding an account object, (and whatever 
> is missing ... ;-)
> you could easily write the test / method example
> for the SMSqueakMap >> accountWithName: aName.
>
> Right?
>

I see what you mean, but I think you can do that with setUp and tearDown
methods, too ... but of course these methods are not categorised as 
test selectors,
and so are not usable for now in my tool.

Romain