[TIP] Result protocol / pass-fail-error

[Olemis Lang]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Olemis Lang <olemis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Doug Philips <dgou at mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to see a --simple-- way to extend these status codes. Maybe: Anything not completely UPPERCASE is implementation defined.
>>>
>>
>> The idea I have is to be consistent with the current test status
>> (ERROR, FAILURE, SUCCESS | PASS | NOT EXPLICITLY FAILED- ) in order to
>> be backward compatible. However allow to specialize the status codes
>> in an OO manner. Firstly by establishing a hierarchy like the
>> following :
>
> Backwards compatible with what?
>

With TestResult.addSuccess, TestResult.addFailure, TestResult.addError
... and TestCase assertion methods, and lists in TestResult ;)

>> - ERROR
>> - FAIL
>>  * KILLED
>>  * TIMEOUT
>>  * UNKNOWN
>> - PASS
>>  * SKIP
>>  * WARNING
>>  * DISABLED
>>  * MISSING
>>  * INCONCLUSIVE
>
> We only define the high level entities, the rest is splitting hairs on
> a per-deployment basis.
>
> As for the rest of what you're talking about:
>
> I am not talking about redefining unittest.TestCase statuses.
> I am not talking about redefining unittest.TestCase statuses.
> I am not talking about redefining unittest.TestCase statuses.
>

Pls. Do I sound that annoying in my message ? Did I emit any personal
offense or something ? Did I try to create a chaos or something ? Did
I do anything different than trying to help ? Why d'u shout so loud ?
Did I ever shout to u like that ?

Sometimes I really dont understand ... And I really dont like this
kind of repetitions and shouting (even if I'm not feeling too bad
about them) ... and I'm sure you'll personally feel bad if I'd done
what u've done above.

I've always tried to treat everybody with respect and tried to
understand everybody. I even changed my behavior when I was creating
some trouble for some people.

Anyway ...

> If unittest wanted to have "i_haz_a_pony" as a status, then it would
> emit that. The collector/executor would then report that.
>

IMHO you are right, but the fact is that the collector should place
the results somewhere. In case of having a list for each imaginable
test status, that'd be very difficult to handle. My proposal is to
reuse the lists we have already in TestResult, and still allow
flexible and custom -especialized- test statuses

Besides this could have the additional benefit mentionned in other
thread in order to store more info and data about the error, failure.

-- 
Regards,

Olemis.

Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/

Featured article: