Maybe the "expected failures" feature of SUnit would do the job? You  
let the tests in question fail but mark them as expected failures  
depending on whether the resources are loaded or not. Visually, the  
test runner will run yellow but explicitly state that it expected to so.

Adrian


On Mar 27, 2006, at 11:09 , Andreas Raab wrote:

> Markus Gaelli wrote:
>> If it's not possible to put the data zipped into a method because  
>> it would be too big somehow, I'd consider your two examples  
>> logically equivalent to "If the moon is made out of green cheese  
>> anything is allowed". So it is kind of ok that these tests are green.
>
> It's 8MB a pop so no, I think it's not really feasible to stick  
> that test data into a method ;-)
>
>> And you are suggesting to indicate clearly, which tests depend on  
>> some external resource?
>
> Well, really, what I'm looking for is something that instead of  
> saying "all tests are green, everything is fine" says "all the  
> tests we ran were green, but there were various that were *not* run  
> so YMMV". I think what I'm really looking for is something that  
> instead of saying "x tests, y passed" either says "x tests, y  
> passed, z skipped" or simply doesn't include the "skipped" ones in  
> the number of tests being run. In either case, looking at something  
> that says "19 tests, 0 passed, 19 skipped" or simply "0 tests, 0  
> passed" is vastly more explicit than "19 tests, 19 passed" where in  
> reality 0 were run.
>
> Like, what if a test which doesn't have any assertion is simply not  
> counted? Doesn't make sense to begin with, and then all the  
> preconditions need to do is to bail out and the test doesn't count...
>
> In any case, my complaint here is more about the *perception* of  
> "these tests are all green, everything must be fine" when in fact,  
> none of them have tested anything.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>