On Feb 13, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 20:04, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote: >> Comment below. >> >> On Feb 12, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote: >> >>> From: Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> > > [...] > >> This is generally how I've run these tests, but I've generally preferred a >> test per item - that way you get a more informed failure when there's a >> problem. E.g., you get "cert was not in application list" instead of >> "expected true but got false". This test is now stable, but failures won't >> be very readable. > > The purpose of the test is to verify that puppet does the right thing > when it has multiple locations for applications on the Ruby load path > – not to verify the presence or absence of core applications. Those > are checked to verify, in essence, the sanity of the test before we > run the real one. > > So, I agree with your assessment, but I think it is kind of a > distraction from the main purpose. Is that reasonable? It wouldn't > be hard to revisit this and correct it...
Ah, ok; I misread the purpose of the test. Thanks. -- My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared. -- P. J. Plauger --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies -|- http://puppetlabs.com -|- +1(615)594-8199 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" 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/puppet-dev?hl=en.
