Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
On 1/31/06, *Kristian Waagan* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Differences in output should be irrelevant. Although not what you
mentioned above, the issue of (execution) control is very relevant. The
logic for running the tests multiple times, each time with a different
setup/environment must be located somewhere. I think Andreas' proposal
of introducing a separate JUnit test type (see
http://www.nabble.com/running-JUnit-tests-t887682.html#a2300670) makes
sense, as it gives us more freedom w.r.t. handling of JUnit tests.
Yes, that proposal made sense to me. I personally like the approach of
having a class for various/different configurations. Although that could
get out of hand.
Does this 'throw away' the work that Rick is doing on DERBY-874?
I think the work currently done on DERBY-874 was mainly to improve the
DerbyJUnitTest's JavaDoc, and to log exceptions. So I would not throw
that away.
However I do propose to change DerbyJUnitTest to move out everything
about configuration into a separate class.
Following Andreas' approach we'd still be able to run the individual
tests separately, yes?
Yes - definetly.
Andreas
