On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, 1:57:34 PM, Nathaniel wrote:

> Anyhow, on running tests in (pseudo-)random order, that's one of the
> test orderings I'd like to implement in the future. The only problem
> with it is, if things fail when you're running them randomly, you'll
> want to know what order they were run in that particular time so you can
> fix the problem. Otherwise it might be more frustrating than helpful.


Emit the random number seed so that it is repeatable, and give a
verbose option (may be there already?) that emits the method names as
they are tested.  That oughta do it.

Gavin