On 8/30/06, Morton Goldberg <m_goldberg / ameritech.net> wrote:

> Just to make sure I looked at the implementation. It does call sort
> on the test method names to establish the order for running the test.
> I can't imagine why it does this. If I were implementing something
> like Test::Unit, as an application of principle of least surprise, I
> would want to ensure Test::Unit preserved the order in which the
> programmer defined the tests. That doesn't mean I'm saying Nathaniel
> Talbott has erred; he may well have a good reason that simply escapes
> me.

Well, for one thing, I don't believe that  it KNOWS the order in which
the methods are defined.

Second, the unit tests really should be order independent. It
shouldn't matter which order they run in. If you need to sequence code
it should be in the test methods.

I think of a test case as a bucket of tests, not any kind of ordered collection.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/