On 2012-09-20 23:14, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Running more unittest blocks after a failure is similarly flawed, but at least in that case, you know that had a failure earlier in the module, which should then tell you that you may not be able to trust further tests (but if you still run them, it's at least then potentially possible to fix further failures at the same time - particularly if your tests don't rely on external state). So, while not necessarily a great idea, it's not as bad to run subsequent unittest blocks after a failure (especially if programmers are doing what they're supposed to and making their unit tests independent).
I don't agree. I think that if you designed your unittests blocks so they depend on other unittest blocks are equally flawed. There's a reason for that most testing frameworks have "setup" and "teardown" functions that are called before and after each test. With these function you can restore the environment to a known state and have the tests keep running.
On the other hand, if there's a failure in a test, continue running that test would be quite bad.
-- /Jacob Carlborg
