# Test/unit filters question/suggestion **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [July 6, 2006, 12:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/test-unit-filters-question-suggestion/97329 "2006-07-06T12:00:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![crenner](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/278dde/32.png) [@crenner](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crenner)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 12:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/test-unit-filters-question-suggestion/97329/1 "2006-07-06T12:00:33Z")
When using the test/unit autorunner, you are able to supply some options. Two of these options are -t (–testcase) and -n (–name); to run only a given testcase or tests matching a given name respectively. These two filters don’t get combined. If I have two test cases containing a test of the same name, I’d expect to be able to specify the exact test to run using both -t and -n. Currently -n appears to take priority and therefore both test methods will be run. Is this explicit by design or a result of my (potentially unusual) test construction? I just had a quick look at combining filters but my efforts were hampered by the inclusion of a default filter that always evaluates to false (set in AutoRunner#process\_args). My solution was to be to run through all filters (in Collector#include?) for a given method rather than returning prematurely as in the current implementation. Does anyone have any insight as to the purpose of the default filter? Cheers, Chris ---
**Author:** ![crenner](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/278dde/32.png) [@crenner](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crenner)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/test-unit-filters-question-suggestion/97329/2 "2006-07-06T21:11:34Z")
On Jul 6, 2006, at 3:00 AM, Chris R. wrote: > When using the test/unit autorunner, you are able to supply some > options. Two of these options are -t (–testcase) and -n (–name); to > run only a given testcase or tests matching a given name respectively. > These two filters don’t get combined. If I have two test cases > containing a test of the same name, I’d expect to be able to specify > the exact test to run using both -t and -n. Currently -n appears to > take priority and therefore both test methods will be run. Is this > explicit by design or a result of my (potentially unusual) test > construction? I looked into this and found it filtered for the union of all options rather than the intersection. > I just had a quick look at combining filters but my efforts were > hampered by the inclusion of a default filter that always evaluates to > false (set in AutoRunner#process\_args). My solution was to be to run > through all filters (in Collector#include?) for a given method rather > than returning prematurely as in the current implementation. Does > anyone have any insight as to the purpose of the default > filter? I built a patch that seemed to produce an intersection behavior, let me try to dig it up. Nathaniel T. was semi-interested in the idea. – Eric H. - removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid - [http://blog.segment7.net](http://blog.segment7.net) This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant [http://trackmap.robotcoop.com](http://trackmap.robotcoop.com) ---
**Author:** ![crenner](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/278dde/32.png) [@crenner](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/crenner)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/test-unit-filters-question-suggestion/97329/3 "2006-07-10T15:08:41Z")
On 7/6/06, Eric H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > construction? > > filter? > > I built a patch that seemed to produce an intersection behavior, let > me try to dig it up. Nathaniel T. was semi-interested in the idea. Hi Eric, Did you find your patch at all? Chris