On Jun 14, 2004, at 9:22, Sean O'Dell wrote:

> 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
>
>

It is the worst case of over self-confidence and stubbornness I have 
ever seen. Simply amusing. I just want to point out that it is not only 
in Ruby that unit testing frameworks strongly discourage dependency on 
test order. Kent Beck in his original work took considerable amount of 
time talking about importance of individual tests being independent. 
Sometimes I even get into trouble because of alphabetical ordering we 
have now in Test::Unit. So I would be happy if Nathaniel finally 
decides to implement random test invocation on every run.

Sincerely,
Gennady Bystritsky