----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Lipkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 5:54 PM Subject: Re: Sorting filesets
> > Perhaps... but unit tests should *all* run all the time. When you break > > something, and indeed more than one test fail, go after the lower-level ones > > first, and the other might go away as well. > > That's exactly what I'm trying to do. I want to run all the tests (well, > most of the time), but if haltonfailure is on (which I prefer) it won't > necessarily even get to the lower-level ones, and if it's off I have to > search through the failures each time, mentally computing the component > dependency graph. That's boring and repetitive, so I want to automate it. > > Ah, now I see that I should have phrased this not as wanting to sort the > tests, but the test *failures*, so I can look at them in a sensible order. > Would the XP crowd have considered that more acceptable? (Let's not get > into the argument about whether I should often be causing lots of tests to > fail. This came up when I made a large transformation to the code two days > ago, now completed, and likely won't happen again soon.) one of the XP theories is that you should always pass all your tests. but in reality, there are those bugreps that you have encountered that you dont have the faintest idea what causes them; turning them in to tests that fail is a step along the way; ignoring them till the more important issues are dealt with is often another. Are you using <junitreport> to prettify your results? It creates a javadoc style view of the results, so you can browse them at your leisure. Also keeps management happy. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
