Author purcell
Recipients
Date 2004-09-30.11:31:09
SpamBayes Score
Marked as misclassified
Message-id
In-reply-to
Content
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21477

I've been really tied up; sorry for the delayed response, but I've been 
reading all the comments on this patch. 
 
Overall, I'm leaning in favour of accepting this patch, probably with 
some minor changes to the way skipped tests are reported. 
 
The concept of skipping is one that has been kept out of JUnit, but is 
found in NUnit and is well regarded there. In my XP coaching work 
ThoughtWorks I see an obscenely large number of JUnit tests, and a 
common mistake is to comment out test method bodies, leading to 
"false passes". Explicit support for skipping in unittest would mitigate 
this. 
 
I agree with Remy that the decorator example, though ingenious, has 
the wrong result; skipped tests will be reported as successes. In order 
for a test method to decide if it should be skipped, it will often need 
information from 'self' that was gathered during setUp() -- this makes 
decorators cumbersome for this. Also, a decorator solution would not 
allow test methods to skip if the setUp() method itself decides to skip(). 
 
Please give me a few more days on this, and I'll work on integrating 
and tweaking the patch. 
History
Date User Action Args
2007-08-23 15:39:54adminlinkissue1034053 messages
2007-08-23 15:39:54admincreate