Sorry for a long post. I will look into using test fixtures; it may do just what I need.
By the way, if the test is coded right, then it won't get into a bad state using that "softFail". This may no longer be relevant. Thank you both for the answers! On 6/19/07, Jay Flowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am with Ted. Sorry I did not read all the way through your email. :-( > > I would use a test suite to run the test on each file. You can even have > the name of the test reflect the name of the file being tested. This way if > a test fails you can easily see which file caused the failure. > > -- > Jay Flowers > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://jayflowers.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > On 6/19/07, Ted Milker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 6/19/07, Leonid L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > An Assert.SoftFail(...) behaves similarly to Assert.Fail(), except > > > that the first occurrence of SoftFail does not cause the testing > > > framework to abort the rest of the method. Instead, the testing > > > continues where it left off until the end of the test is reached. All > > > of the errors are accumulated then and presented to the user. The > > > advantage of the SoftFail over Fail is that it potentially exposes > > > more errors during a single test run. That can reduce the number of > > > necessary iterations in the "run tests -> find failures -> fix bugs -> > > > run tests ..." cycle before all test failures are fixed. > > > > It does not appear that the loop is critical to the test from your > > example, you are only using it to do 100 files in a single test rather > > than a single file in a single test. I am still getting into MbUnit > > so forgive my inexperience but could you not use a DataFixture that > > runs the test over a whole list of files? > > > > I would like to hear more about how allowing a test to continue to run > > after a true assertion fails will provide more relevant errors. It > > seems to me that it would only provide more erroneous bugs since the > > test is in an invalid state once the assertion is hit and then the > > test continues. > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MbUnit.User" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/MbUnitUser?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
