Le 2010-07-06 à 11:28, Sean Kelly a écrit : > On Jul 5, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote: >> >> Sean Kelly wrote: >>> That's probably my fault. >> >> Every team needs one of those people. Thanks for filling that role. > > I like to maintain a steady level of failure to keep things positive ;-) > > How about this... the unittest handler only returns an error code and if it's > nonzero then the app won't run.
This is what I was expecting the change would do originally. Running the program should be conditional to the unit tests being successful, otherwise it's too easy to ignore them. Another way to put it is: do you want your failed unit tests to behave as warnings or as errors? I choose errors. -- Michel Fortin [email protected] http://michelf.com/ _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
