On 3/1/07 1:42 PM, "chromatic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 01 March 2007 10:36, Andy Armstrong wrote: > >> If you get it right it'll also be a great help to the people writing >> the rules. You can give them a tool which allows them to start with >> an assertion and work backwards to a rule that implements it. They'll >> be able to do their own testing on the rule outside of the live >> application. > > That sounds much like FIT. Does Test::Fit look helpful?
That looks like roughly what I was looking for. I'm thinking we might be able to write a general fixture sub-class for the business rule framework and all of our actual test fixtures could base class off of that, limiting further the amount of work an individual test writer would need to do. I *definitely* like the idea that it would potentially give us a tool to use with the customer when specing out the rules for an application. Even so, I would have to figure out a way to organize my fixtures effectively. There are 139 fields in the current application and while they're not all relevant to each test case, we'll have to keep track of the dependencies between them all when putting together the individual test cases. Andrew -- Andrew Gianni - Lead Programmer Analyst University at Buffalo, State University of New York Computing and Information Technology / Administrative Computing Services 215 MFAC, Ellicott Complex, Buffalo, NY 14261-0026 716.645.3587x7124 - AIM: andrewsgianni - http://schoolof.info/agianni
