On Monday 14 June 2004 11:07, Gennady wrote:
> 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.

Meaning what, that Nathaniel didn't post saying he found some good ideas in my 
library and would be adding some of them to his own?  Where is the 
over-confidence.

I think what we have is more than one person who is annoyed that my ideas are 
not something they can just swat down, so long as I can code them myself.  
That's honestly what I think, that people are EXTRA annoyed that I went and 
did it for myself.  It took the power away from you, didn't it?  You can't 
tell someone "no, we won't do that" when they can just go do it themselves.

Petty.  I can't believe how petty some of you are.

	Sean O'Dell