On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 11:35:38AM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
> Ah. Confusion of vocab. You're talking about the order of the test
> scripts rather than the order of tests run by those scripts. Yes?
Ah, Yes.
> I think Tony was talking about the order of tests.
OK. I think I'm hampered by nev
Ah. Confusion of vocab. You're talking about the order of the test
scripts rather than the order of tests run by those scripts. Yes?
I think Tony was talking about the order of tests.
While key test scripts tend to be run earlier in some setups, I'm not
sure that's it going to be a useful disti
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 04:49:46PM +, Tony Bowden wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 12:16:53AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > I also had thoughts along the lines of all tests not being equal.
> > Generally the earlier a test is run, the more important it is.
>
> This isn't necessarily true.
>
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 12:16:53AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I also had thoughts along the lines of all tests not being equal.
> Generally the earlier a test is run, the more important it is.
This isn't necessarily true.
Test::Class, for example, runs tests in alphabetical order ...
Tony
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:48:29PM -0500, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
> Here's an interesting way of depicting the statements that are likely
> to have cause test failures:
>
> http://www.cc.gatech.edu/aristotle/Tools/tarantula/
>
> Tarantula displays each source code statement using color m
Here's an interesting way of depicting the statements that are likely
to have cause test failures:
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/aristotle/Tools/tarantula/
Tarantula displays each source code statement using color models
that reflect its relative success rate of its execution by the test
