Re: saving state between fixtures

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ward Cunningham" <[email protected]>
To: "FIT Developers" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Fit-dev] saving state between fixtures


>
> On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 11:07  AM, Charlie Poole wrote:
>
> >> As an added feature, all such objects are reported in the fit.Summary,
> >> if present.
> >
> > Would that be desirable for the kind of state data that inspired the
> > original question?
>
> That's hard to say. It was Micah Martin who pointed this out to me. He
> considered it an abuse of the summary hash. I must admit that I am
> liking the idea more and more even though I haven't actually done it
> myself.

A quick look at the summary fixture shows that it pretty much depends
on both the key and the value being strings, at least in the Python version.
What's needed is a somewhat more general way to save state from one
fixture to another, without it being reported.

Other than that, I think the location is exactly correct - a second hash
in Fixture that would allow storing state would be exactly correct. In
fact, using a hash opens up the intreguing idea of using it as a symbol
table.

John Roth