Hi Markus, 

Actually I have no plan yet on how to implement this fonctionality ...
this was just a fast reaction to Avi's idea.
I know I have some code to link tests and methods, and I have to
experiment with your approach too. 

Concerning your proposal for the workshop, I'll be very glad
if you use it ;-). Anyway the license is MIT I believe, so you could
do whatever you want ;-). Keep me informed of the results. 

Cheers,
   Romain 

Markus Gaelli a écrit: 

> Hi Romain, 
> 
>>> 
>>> And on the flip side, it might be nice to have a QuickTestCase too, that 
>>> can be run all the time - like, every time you accept a method... 
>>> 
>> 
>> Hey, neat idea ... I got to put that on my todo list for BrowseUnit ;-) 
>> 
> So do you plan to connect that QuickTestCase - I think I call it 
> one-method test ;-) -
> to the method under test? 
> 
> A one-method test is dedicated to one method and, as it is _explicitly_ 
> linked to that method, could be executed as soon as this method is 
> changed/saved. 
> 
> The most lightweight solution to explicitly create this link (I can think 
> of ), would be to denote _the method under test_ in the test using a 
> comment just before the call of the method under test: (here "test") 
> 
> Example:
> ===========
> AccountTest  >> testWithdrawOkFrom123
>   "setup"
>   |anAccount |
>   anAccount:= AccountTest new testDeposit100On123. 
> 
>   "test"
>   anAccount withdraw: 60. 
> 
>   "asserts"
>   self assert: anAccount balance = 40. 
> 
>   ^anAccount
> ===========
> This is one part of the story. Another is, that tests could be composed, 
> so that if its tests are called by other tests, this other tests should be 
> executed: 
> 
> In the example above only "AccountTest >> testWithdrawOkFrom123" would be 
> executed if I changed "Account >> deposit",
> as it calls "AccountTest  >> testDeposit100On123", which _is_ focusing on 
> "Account >> deposit". 
> 
> So composed tests should be a QuickTestCase for all explicitly linked 
> methods. 
> 
> Or do you plan to denote the tests in the method itself?
> I would prefer not, as you might run into problems with people who still 
> :-) want to see their code independent of their tests, and who also want 
> to rename a method without having to change the RefactoringBrowser, so 
> that RB took denoting comments into account. (Above I can only use "test" 
> and _not_ any name of a method to denote it...) 
> 
> Actually I have some weeks to do a prototype for an Oopsla workshop with 
> the nice name:
> "Revival of Dynamic Languages" and I would like to use services and 
> browse-unit. Would you mind if I did it? Or do you have other design 
> issues / solutions in mind  I should know about? 
> 
> My paper can be found on 
> http://pico.vub.ac.be/~wdmeuter/RDL04/papers/Gaelli.pdf 
> 
> Thanks a lot for your very nice work on Services and BrowseUnit. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Markus 
> 
>