> Whenever I run across situations like this, I've been making the test
> methods into "check methods", like :
>
> checkABC(expected,actual);
>
> Then my actual testXXX() methods just loop through the available data.
>
> The check methods are either private to the TestCase I'm writing, or
> sometimes I move them to a third class and use the static
> TestCase.assertXXX() methods to do the work.
Kevin, I don't think this solves his problem, because if the check in
iteration 34 fails, then remaining checks don't happen.
--
J. B. (Joe) Rainsberger
Diaspar Software Services
http://www.diasparsoftware.com :: +1 416 791-8603
Predictable, repeatable, quality delivery
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
|
Yahoo! Groups Links
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/junit/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
