dblack / candle.superlink.net wrote:

> Could there be a way to hook or override the default test, so
> that one could relatively easily change the behavior?

Sure, it's trivial, and that's really at the core of the matter: where
do you introduce the overhead? Do you introduce it for those who want a
failure whenever they have an empty TestCase? Or, do you introduce it
for those who want to keep empty TestCases around? I think it has to be
one or the other - one set of users will have a bit of extra work, and
the other group of users will be able to start working out of the box.

To be honest, I still lean towards making the default to fail on an
empty TestCase. What's a failure? It's an invitation to implement.
What's an empty TestCase? It's an invitation to implement (as Dave
pointed out in ruby-talk:60964). If you want to silence the invitation,
you just add an empty test to match your empty test case.


Nathaniel

<:((><
+ - -
| RoleModel Software, Inc.
| EQUIP VI