2009/3/17 Adrian Howard <adri...@quietstars.com>: > > On 16 Mar 2009, at 18:47, Michael G Schwern wrote: > >> Adrian Howard wrote: >>> >>> On 14 Mar 2009, at 05:57, Michael G Schwern wrote: >>> [snip] >>>> >>>> The test numbering exists to ensure that all your tests run, and in >>>> the right >>>> order. XUnit frameworks don't need to know the number of tests >>>> because they >>>> simply don't have this type of protection. [1] >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> And, to some extent, need it less. Since most xUnit systems have the >>> test-result-producer and the test-result-consumer running in the same >>> process space - some of the problems that plans help with (like early >>> termination) aren't really much of an issue. >> >> In that your whole testing process crashes and you get no results? ;) > > Yup! But at least I know something went wrong :-)
Not necessarily. You'll only know this if you are visually inspecting the output of every test. Once you start using a continuous build/test then you have no protection against early exit.This is what I was trying to get at earlier. If you have an outright crash, that should be detected but exit(0) will look like a pass, F >> Early exit isn't the practical reason for plans, the harness watching the >> exit >> code of the test process handles everything but an actual exit(0) and >> those >> are very rare. The real problem is a logic or data error which results in >> some tests being accidentally bypassed. > > Yup. No argument from me there. > >> I suppose what really covers their ass is that by being broken up into >> test_* >> routines each test function is isolated and their code is simpler and less >> likely to have a logic error that results in a test never being run. > > > Yup. > > Adrian > -- > delicious.com/adrianh - twitter.com/adrianh - adri...@quietstars.com > > > >
