On 1/27/06, Anton Avtamonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry for being away during the major part of your discussion. Hope > I'm still not too late. > > As I can see currently we have only one 'exotic' situation - some > tests which are based on providers and use so many provider's > fucntionality that cannot be replaced with mock objects in a > reasonable time. Since such tests look like 'system' (use real > environment) I believe the idea of having separate trees is better. > Something like: > > test/unit > and > test/system.
As I wrote earlier in this thread that cause duplication of tests: we have hundreds tests that might serve both as 'unit' and 'system' > > It will be clear that *all* unit tests are run regularly during the > development and don't need any specifical > settings/logging/filtering/etc. > > -- > Anton Avtamonov, > Intel Middleware Products Division >
