Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> in practice i found it often simpler to write tests that only output a >> result when they know that they have passed: you need to create far >> less logic, which might minimize the chance to write buggy tests >> (which i found is inevitable) likewise, it is often simple to have a >> shortcut to tell the framework that the test is known to have failed >> (most of these shortcuts could be avoided by splitting the test into >> several sub-tests; in practice i found that i prefer to write less >> tests) apart from that, a mechanism to quit a test from outside after >> some timeout might be a good idea. > > But this is not really what we were talking about. We were thinking > about the WAIT state. I sort of assumed that there were both PASS and > FAIL results, and this is why I said tri-state, but we were talking > about how to represent WAIT in Pd.
yes, this is what i was talking about (and was a bit unclear): a test can only have 2 results (PASS and FAIL), but it can return more states (WAIT,...) in order to communicate to the framework that it needs special handling (e.g. more time) i shouldn't have confused these 2 things. fmg.asdr IOhannes _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
