I think that having parametrized tests is good, however I just wanted to point out that defining the parameters in the Runtime class/object might not be suffienciently expressive to what we want. We might would like a kind of grouping/system of tests so that it is easy to run the tests without any particular knowledge of which protocols support which parameters. Those tests for which a given set of parameters is invalid, the test could return an undefined value, or the test could be elided from the set of tests since it doesn't make any sense for these parameters anyhow.
-- Janus Den 14/02/2008 kl. 4.22 skrev Martin Geisler: > "Thomas Jakobsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> As Martin points out, it will be inconvenient or impossible to >> parameterize some tests like this. But for others, it will be just >> as easy, and in these cases we get a lot of extra testing for "free" >> by doing it, since it will enable us to run them with many >> parameters. > > We just have to remember to be very careful with the random seeds used > in these tests -- we must be able to reproduce the tests exactly. > > But if we get that right, I think random testing would be great way to > expand the scope of the current tests to make sure that everything > still holds together with more players, larger threshold, etc. > > -- > Martin Geisler > _______________________________________________ > viff-devel mailing list (http://viff.dk/) > [email protected] > http://lists.viff.dk/listinfo.cgi/viff-devel-viff.dk _______________________________________________ viff-devel mailing list (http://viff.dk/) [email protected] http://lists.viff.dk/listinfo.cgi/viff-devel-viff.dk
