* Martijn Dashorst:
> In Wicket development (on the core project), the unit tests
> sometimes just don't run for a couple of days because they are
> used as a method of communication: someone knows how to
> reproduce a bug but doesn't know how to fix it. The unit test
> exposing the bug is then committed, so that someone else can
> look at it in due time.
Mmm actually I don't really agree, making the build fail should
not be intentional. We could have some convention like for
example naming the failing unit test methods after bugTestXXX()
instead of testXXX() to make it obvious that the test does not run
and that there is a bug.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
