On Jul 14, 1:23 pm, Jarkko Oranen wrote:
> Perhaps it
> would be best to consider test-ns-hook a low-level construct that can
> do whatever it wants with the defined tests and fixtures, and provide
> some other means for specifying which tests will be run.
Yes, I'm leaning this way too. If you
On Jul 14, 6:58 pm, Stuart Sierra wrote:
> Namespace-wide fixtures ("once-fixtures") are easy -- they should just
> run around the top-level test function. That's something I can fix,
> and it will be sufficient for your example.
>
> But per-test fixtures ("each-fixtures") present a problem. If
On Jul 14, 9:41 am, Matt Revelle wrote:
> I recently noticed that fixtures were not being called for some tests
> in my code and it turns out (thanks, Chouser) the use of test-ns-hook
> is incompatible with fixtures. This isn't necessarily undesirable
> behavior, but it raises an issue: do
Hi group,
I recently noticed that fixtures were not being called for some tests
in my code and it turns out (thanks, Chouser) the use of test-ns-hook
is incompatible with fixtures. This isn't necessarily undesirable
behavior, but it raises an issue: does anyone want high-level support
fo
