On Sunday, October 13, 2002, at 10:05 AM, Tony Bowden wrote: >> Makes it simpler for people who prefer the 'no_plan' style of >> testing > > Maybe this is what I just don't get. I'm not one of those people, so I > don't really understand why people might prefer it. Especially here > where there's such a natural way to specify them, and you're only > counting them per method, rather than over the entire test.
I have to agree with Tony. I think it's important to explicitly indicate the number of tests that a given method runs, and to be explicit about saying when you're not sure how many tests there will be. In that regard, I like the current design better, although I would have no complaint if you decided to change the string "no_plan" to something else. What I would like to see changed, however, is when a method indicates a number of tests, and then runs fewer than that, but doesn't complain. This is because of the skip feature, where you can return from a method early when you want to skip the rest of the tests. But if you just have too few tests, it silently succeeds. I think that this issue can be circumvented by requiring a string to be returned from a method when you want to skip the remainder of the tests. A silent return would fail. Regards, David -- David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394 http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
