[TIP] alphabetical order in testing

[Olemis Lang]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Olemis Lang <olemis at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:52 AM, C. Titus Brown <ctb at msu.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:12:29AM -0500, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:42 AM, holger krekel <holger at merlinux.eu> wrote:
>>> > Some way of telling a test runner to consider tests in a certain
>>> > order makes sense to me, though.
>>> >
>>> > In fact, I had user requests and own thoughts to allow declaring dependencies -
>>> > such that if a test fails subsequent ones would not be run anymore.
>>>
>>> Probably (I don't know the exact details ;o), but if the first test
>>> fails that (should ?) means that something is not right (i.e. behaving
>>> like expected) with the SUT .
>>
>> Olemis, et al. -- independence of test order is generally considered a
>> requirement for unit tests, but not for other tests (functional, UI, etc.)
>> where it simply wouldn't make sense.
>>

BTW, D'u have some (concrete ?) examples illustrating this ?

-- 
Regards,

Olemis.

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

Featured article:
HG Ignoring ... bah !  -
http://flioops.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/flioops/dutest/rev/7cb63949b459