> I cant think of two ways of anotating:
> 1)
> aClass>>test1
>    <architectureTest>
>    <integrationTest>
>    ... the test
>
> 2)
> aClass>>test1
>    <architectureTest>
>    <integrationTest>
>    <architectureTestAndIntegrationTest>
>    ... the test
> > But I don't kwnow how to obtain which ones are architecture tests,
> etc.
> Using sets and suites, it is simple:
>
> Set architectureTests := Set with: aClass>>test1 with: ...
> Set integrationTests := Set with: aClass>>test1 with: ...
> Set archtectureAndIntegrationTests := architectureTests union:
> integrationTests.
>
> architectureTestSuite := (TestSuite named:..) addTests: architectureTests.
> integrationTestSuite := (TestSuite named:..) addTests: integrationTests.
> etc.
>
> If I need to change the categorization, I change the objects (the
> sets), not a method, and the info about the categories is in one
> place, not spread all over.

Mhh, I see that different ... ;-)

The problem with your approach is that you categorize your methods at
a different places than you define them. Basically this means I have
to accept two methods, if I add, change or remove a test.

I do very much prefer your annotation example (1) where I directly tag
the concerning method with the necessary meta-information. For me this
is much easier to maintain, because I can see immediately when
browsing the method to what category it belongs to. Moreover I can
quickly query all the currently taged methods by browsing the senders
of #architectureTest. Then I get the suite with one line of code, not
a method full of selectors defined somewhere throughout the image:

Set architectureTests := MethodAnnotation allNamed: #architectureTest
from: aClass.

Cheers,
Lukas

--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch