----- Original Message ----

> From: jerry gay <jerry....@gmail.com>

> i don't understand the drive to have unique test identifiers. we don't
> have unique identifiers for every code statement, or every bit of
> documentation. why are tests so important/special/different that each
> warrants a unique id?

Actually, if code is well-written, we *do* sort of have unique identifiers.  
"Bob, you need to change &Customer::name to also show the middle initial".  We 
don't really have anything like that in tests unless we move close to the xUnit 
style.  TAP has no concept of this.

Unique identifiers are useful in that they can let you track changes over time 
(many of us use source control history to understand changes over time for 
code).  It would be very useful to have unique identifiers to persist to a db 
and create graphs of one's test suite behavior ("hey, we keep failing out 
credit card tests. We should look into this more carefully!").

Buy the book         - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Tech blog            - http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
Twitter              - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl
Official Perl 6 Wiki - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6

Reply via email to