On Sunday 13 June 2004 07:52, Jamis Buck wrote:
> Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
> > As I've watched the uses of test/unit grow and change over time, I've
> > also considered adding more ability to run tests in specific orders...
> > however, this is because I see test/unit being used in various places at
> > an acceptance (or customer) testing level, where those needs are much
> > more legitimate. It's a challenge to introduce something like that,
> > though, and still encourage good unit testing practices. Perhaps it's
> > time for test/accept?
>
> Forgive me if this has already been asked and answered, but what exactly
> *are* good unit testing practices, and how should they be implemented?
> I've been trying to use test/unit more and more, and to be honest I keep
> running into situations where I would like tests to be run in a specific
> order. If I have understood the comments in this thread, it sounds like
> several of you think that this is a bad thing... I'm having trouble
> seeing how else to do it, I guess.

I don't think people think its a bad thing, people just don't like when people 
come along and criticize their beloved development framework, and I've done 
that.  They're just being defensive.  They know running tests in a controlled 
order is the right thing to do, they just don't like it when people point out 
a library they love doesn't do this or that.  I find a lot of things I ask 
for in Ruby gets responses like that.  Something doesn't do this or that, so 
people start arguing how perhaps it shouldn't be doing that in the first 
place.  A lot of people love Ruby so much, they're trying to fantasize that 
it's is as perfect as can be, and they don't like people pointing out cracks.  
It's pretty normal, I think.  Frustrating, but normal.

	Sean O'Dell