On 7/12/06, Mikeal Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you're suggesting that the report just say "I ran 5 test and "TestSwitchTimeZone" " failed, and that anything more is too much output then I'll have to disagree. The purpose of the automated testing system is to tell you, as granularly as possible _what_ failed, not just that _something_ failed.
that's what i'm saying. there's a difference between detailed trace info and a simple summary of test results. 99% of the time i want to only see the simple results. when there's a failure, i'm happy to go look in a log file for the trace info. i definitely don't want it all spewed to my screen for every test run.
A given test performs between 5 and 400 individual actions. Just telling you that it "failed somewhere" is nearly useless, all that
what i meant to communicate was that, along with failure, the test system would report a meaningful message (provided by the test author) describing what went wrong and providing a starting point for investigation. detailed trace info in a log file would help narrow the search.
says is that you need to go and track some issue, somewhere. Instead this tells you what failed, and where, and in some of the test tools you could even run that single test again with an increased debug level and get more feedback (like in HTTPTest it will print the requests and responses from the server if debug > 4).
in the normal case i want as little feedback as possible, and i want it to be supremely easy to see when something failed and what specific thing(s) failed. that is just not the case with HTTPTest or with the suggested output from earlier in this thread. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
