# from Michael Peters
# on Thursday 22 January 2009 09:55:
>> I suppose "if($whatever) { some_test() } else { alternate_test()}"
>> would complicate automatic counting. But, you have to go down one
>> branch.
>
>But there's no protection that one branch doesn't have a different
> number of tests than the other.
If you can see all of the function calls at compile-time, you can count
them. If one branch has a different count than the other, that's an
error unless the shorter branch contains a skip statement?
>> The only impossible spot is when tests are inside e.g. a
>> runtime dispatched method, no? (And, given the procedural paradigm,
>> that seems to be an odd case.)
>
>No, that's not odd at all. Any data driven testing system will be that
> way. Tests are run based on some config file (I know Ovid uses YAML
> for something like this), etc.
That still doesn't imply that we can't somehow count the number of tests
with a computer instead of relying on humans to screw it up. If some
combination of static analysis and early runtime can come up with a
count, then it becomes possible to automatically plan without counting.
So, whatever constructs make that impossible might be worth pondering.
--Eric
--
"...the bourgeoisie were hated from both ends: by the proles, because
they had all the money, and by the intelligentsia, because of their
tendency to spend it on lawn ornaments."
--Neal Stephenson
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
