SUnit: Skipping tests?
Markus Gaelli
gaelli at emergent.de
Mon Mar 27 14:57:15 UTC 2006
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
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|