Quoting Mathieu Bouchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > >>>> - allow fail-tests which have to return FAIL-state in order to success >>> How do you know that a method has failed properly? >> because it returns the expected FAIL-state. > > Why do you need this instead of having a test PASS when the test checks > that the error happened correctly? > >> the problem is the same as "how do you know that a method has >> succeeded properly" > > I think that pretty much anyone doing automated tests so far agree that > it's better to have just all tests be written in the positive way, so > that you don't have to ever exchange the meanings of PASS and FAIL.
i needed it to test the framework itself. i believe that this is important. (and i am doing automated tests and do not agree that just all tests ought to be written in a positive way) my proposals where not about a theoretic test-framework, but based in my practical experiences with an automated test-framework. i that i learned quite a lot about tests.... nfghasd,tr IOhannes ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
