--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The whole idea of halting on first failure was introduced to me by > some XUnit > folks ... As any field scientist knows, there's no such thing as > uncontaminated data.
As any tester knows, a "one size fits all suit" often doesn't fit. Let people decide for themselves when a particular method of testing is appropriate. I hate "you must halt testing on a failure" as much as I hate "you must not halt testing on failure". It's not XOR. There's a certain irony that beginning testers are often told to fix the *first* error *first* and subsequent errors go away. I'm not saying this is a silver bullet to solve testing, but sometimes it's very useful. I am feeling a bit stupid because I can't figure out your conclusion. Humor me. At times it sounds like you're telling people not to do this and at times it sounds like you're telling people it's hard to do with Test::Builder :) Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl and CGI - http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/ Personal blog - http://publius-ovidius.livejournal.com/ Tech blog - http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
