Hi Nick,

Am I reading your right, Are you suggesting to implement this
manual looping/collecting/reporting separately in every unittest
which needs that?

On Tue, 11 May 2010, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> added the comment:

> I agree with Michael - one test that covers multiple settings can easily be done by collecting results within the test itself and then checking at the end that no failures were detected (e.g. I've done this myself with a test that needed to be run against multiple input files - the test knew the expected results and maintained lists of filenames where the result was incorrect. At the end of the test, if any of those lists contained entries, the test was failed, with the error message giving details of which files had failed and why).