On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:38:06 -0500 "Christopher Dolan" <christopher.do...@avid.com> wrote:
> While useful, I recommend against that feature in general. > Philosophically, it's bad practice to connect the unit tests -- they > should be as simple as possible and stand alone. Technologically, > when the first test fails, then the second one fails with a really > obscure error. I can't remember the specifics, but it was bad enough > to convince me to rewrite all of my "dependsOnMethod" tests. I agree in general :-) In some cases test setup can take long or a resource cannot be reused quickly enough and (test) class level setup is in order. For the former doing an exhaustive testing of database functionality can be an example. I also had a case involving extended XML trees for which initializations would have been cumbersome and would have made more hardly followable code. (Admittedly it is still a trade-off considering the brittleness you mention.) For the latter I have only a gut feeling that some use of the resources by River might fall into that category. Zsolt Ps.: It should be noted that TestNG runs test cases parallely by default.
