On May 22, 2006, at 11:58 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I do it all the time. The simple solution is to put a “test_dummy” in
the superclass. Really not hard and a fair tradeoff to have the right
code in the right place.
This has been suggested before to the Watir users. Many of them don’t
like the fact that this results in an incorrect test case count.
Quite frankly, I don’t really care that they consider it to output an
“incorrect” test case count. It works for many of us and is a fair
tradeoff. I’d much rather have the requirement removed from test/unit
outright, but I didn’t design test/unit and I too disagree with
requiring it (but! see below!). I however disagree wholly with making
test/unit MORE complex under all but the most optimal of returns. I
don’t think your suggestion matches that requirement esp since it
clearly violates the notion of a unit test.
That said, I think your proposal has merit, just not where you want
it. I did just poke around a bit more and figgered something out that
might be satisfactory for the both of us:
501 % ruby -rtest/unit -e ‘class X < Test::Unit::TestCase; end’
Loaded suite -e
Finished in 0.005603 seconds.
No tests were specified.
1 tests, 1 assertions, 1 failures, 0 errors
502 % ruby -rtest/unit -e ‘class X < Test::Unit::TestCase; def
default_test; end; end’
Loaded suite -e
Finished in 0.00228 seconds.
1 tests, 0 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors
YES, it still has an incorrect test count, but it also doesn’t have
as much “smell” as “test_dummy” in an abstract testcase.
in. So it is more convenient for Watir users than a subclass.
How is it more convenient?
class BlahTest < Test::Unit::TestCase
class BlahTest < SystemTestCase
Do you really see either of those as more convenient than the other?
However, I’m not quite sure whether you are saying
a) i (ryan) would prefer to do it a different way
b) i don’t want to see this change made to the core test/unit code in
c) it is a bad idea for anyone to use this mod
I understand (a). I can see your reasons for (b), and actually have
been eager for feedback on whether this might be a good idea or not.
(although i did get some positive noises offline from Nathaniel
– the test/unit author). i can see no grounds for © – if this is
your position, please elaborate.
(a) obviously, but on the grounds of (b). I’ve purposefully not
addressed © as I think its been addressed (several times) before,
but I also agree that it is a bad idea to use the mod.