On Feb 17, 2005, at 17:27, Belorion wrote:

> Is asking test/unit to run all assertions in a test regardless of 
> outcome
> not possible then?

No, it is not possible. It's not even an easy hack on the framework. 
I've considered it, particularly for functional/acceptance testing, but 
haven't gotten around to deciding if it's a good idea or not.


> I could have written out 10 different smaller tests ... but to me
> that seems to break the logic of wanting to run like assertions
> together in the same test ... after all, they were all on the same
> method and testing the same logic.  If, later down the line I want to
> run these tests again, but not *all* of the tests in my suite, I would
> have to pass each test_name at the command line.  This seems to make
> unit testing more complicated than it should be (which I admit is
> still nicer than unit testing in any other language I've used).

Note that if you gave these related tests a similar name, you could run 
them all in one fell swoop from the command line using a regex. Also, 
if they're sufficiently similar, you could even generate the test 
methods at runtime, which might reduce any redundancy between them.

HTH,


Nathaniel

<:((><