Re: Graphically depicting coverage vs. test results

[Adrian Howard]

Ah. Confusion of vocab. You're talking about the order of the test scripts rather than the order of tests run by those scripts. Yes?

I think Tony was talking about the order of tests.

While key test scripts tend to be run earlier in some setups, I'm not sure that's it going to be a useful distinction all of the time. There are certainly lots of test setups where it's not true for me.

Adrian

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 11:12 pm, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 04:49:46PM +0000, Tony Bowden wrote:

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 12:16:53AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:

I also had thoughts along the lines of all tests not being equal.
Generally the earlier a test is run, the more important it is.

This isn't necessarily true.

Test::Class, for example, runs tests in alphabetical order ...

Well, yes, I think this is true for most (all?) of Perl's core and CPAN
modules, but a developer is free to impose an order by playing with the
names of the tests, similar to the way things work with rc scripts.

Maybe I should have said that tests for basic functionality should
probably be run before tests for more advanced functionality, as happens
in the perl core.

Fortunately, "basic" comes fairly early in the alphabet :-)

--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net