On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 07:35:26AM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 07:13:08PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > But (I thought) the idea was that every test needs the same setup. If > > they're all in one method, they won't get that. > > How's that?
I thought the "isolation" principle that people were talking about is that before every test, a "setup" method is called, and after every test a "teardown" is called, automatically by the test harness. This seems to require one method == one test. > > Also, if you add lots of tests in a single method, (again as I understand) > > they will stop after the first failure, which is not ideal if the rest of > > the tests can still run. > > That's a feature. If they can still run, move them to a different > method. I was responding to your suggestion to put all the tests in one method if they are just parametrized by data. How do you suggest writing the equivalent of foreach (@test_data) { is(my_func($_->{input}), $_->{output}, $_->{test_name}); } in xUnit style, such that the first failure does not cause the rest not to run? Andrew