Piers Cawley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Matthew Astley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> Hey, I don't care what the default is, just that we should try and
> provide something that's strictly the same as well.
OK, all sounds good. I'll provide a subclass of TestRunner so that
people can choose either behaviour. I need someone with more
knowledge of the history of the various testing frameworks to choose a
sensible name though, because I don't know anything about how XUnit
relates to JUnit/PerlUnit, or even BioPerl for that matter.
_______________________________________________
Perlunit-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perlunit-devel
