On Monday 14 June 2004 10:27, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> Sean O'Dell [mailto:sean / celsoft.com] :
> > On Monday 14 June 2004 08:14, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >> Sean O'Dell [mailto:sean / celsoft.com]:
> >>> When you're given no choice, as far as you're concerned as a
> >>> library user, they're run in an arbitrary order. [...]
> >>
> >> This is a different claim than you made initially.
> >
> > I learned that tests were run alphabetically, but originally I
> > thought they were run randomly, according to the order Ruby
> > returned them (which I think was actually correct, if I read
> > Nathaniel right). Either way, I felt the ordering was arbitrary. I
> > didn't say random because I wasn't sure it was random, I just knew
> > that the order was, as far as I was concerned, in some arbitrary
> > order (decided not by me for reasons so vague I don't even know
> > them and can't interpolate them from the docs).
>
> This does not address the fact that it is a different claim than you
> made initially.

What claim is that?  That the tests were run in a random order?  Nathaniel 
himself said the tests used to run in the order Ruby listed them, which is 
clearly what was happening now that I think about it.  They WERE running in 
what appeared to me to be a random order.

> You may want to take a less arrogant tone; you're starting to stink
> things up around here since you obviously cannot or will not read
> what people have actually written in your haste to defend yourself
> against attacks that don't exist. It also decreases the interest in
> your library given your inept behaviour over a simple, very polite
> request of someone who felt that you misspoke.

How about you just don't respond to my posts instead?  I find you more than a 
little arrogant also.

> What I said was -- very clearly -- TESTS should be written to be run
> in any arbitrary or random order. I didn't suggest that a testing
> framework shouldn't be able to specify a particular test running
> order. Frankly, I would love to be able to do:
>
>   Test::Unit::Runner.order = :random
>
> And *force* the tests to be run in a random order to ensure that I
> am not introducing dependencies between test cases.

First of all, that's YOUR opinion.  Don't force it on anyone.  You can't do 
that with Test/Unit right now, but you can certainly access the list of tests 
in celsoft.com/Battery and randomize them if you wish.  Or put them 
alphabetically, etc.  See how it gives you the choice?

Why are you arguing against any of this?  You talk about how alphabetic is 
fine, tell me to stop being arrogant, then in the very same post ask for a 
specific way to order your tests!  Do you want to control the ordering or 
not?  Make up your mind.

	Sean O'Dell