On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:04:46PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Adam Spiers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It looks like add_pass is something we (Brian?) added. I like it,
>> and I think we should take advantage of it -- I'd prefer us to
>> improve on JUnit and then document unexpected differences rather
>> than aim for a 100% clone. Does that conflict with other people's
>> ideas of the goals of PerlUnit?
[...]
> I'd still like to see something that looks just like the default JUnit
> behaviour, if only so that folks can have consistent test output in
> environments where they're working in both java and perl (say).
FWIW my opinion is to improve on JUnit by default (the existing
behaviour is a little odd), and folks doing unified JUnit/PerlUnit
tests are bright enough to switch to 'TestRunner::StrictXUnit' or
whatever, as Piers suggests.
<rhet>What do the JUnit guys say about having .F for a failure?</rhet>
Matthew #8-)
_______________________________________________
Perlunit-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perlunit-devel
