Re: Fwd: Fwd: Assume

Thanks

cliff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:nunit-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Charlie Poole
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 4:01 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [nunit-developer] Fwd: Fwd: Assume
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> > Just brainstorming here....
> >
> > Right now the runners have three results:  Pass, Fail, and
> > Did Not Run.
> > Sorta like a nullable Boolean.  I don't see that the runner
> > would have to alter that at all.  If the Assumptions fail,
> > then this test falls into the "Did Not Run" category.  If
> > some one chose to use ASSumptions rather than ASSerts, then
> > this is the desired results, and it's up to the developer to
> > deal with it.  If they wanted a failure, they would not have
> > used ASSume.
> 
> But in this case, you don't want a "Did not Run" You don't
> want the test to show up at all. Which is my point. Since the
> test is created from your iterator at test-load-time but run
> at test-run-time, the test will be listed and shown as not
> run. You're building tests here and what I thik you really
> want is for the test not to be built - to never exist!

[cliff] but wouldn't you want to know the dataset that caused your test
to not run or not be built.  Maybe in a report or something, but I think
I'd like to have some way of knowing that.

> 
> 
> > I can see potential bennefit of eiter wrapping a Test inside
> > of another so that the outter test only passes if the second
> > one runs, but then I wonder, why bother going through all
> > those hoops if the end result was /a/ failing test.  Then
> > there's the question of should a continuous build system
> > report these skipped tests any differently than other skipped
> > tests.  I just don't see if.  Maybe I'm not seeing the big
> > picture, but if a developer wanted a test with invalid data
> > to fail, he would use Assert.  If he wants it to skip, this
> > gives him an option that wasn't previously there.  Please
> > feel free to tell me what I've overlooked something.
> 
> My only point is that the word Assume does't mean what you
> are doing here in normal English.
> 
> Charlie
> 
> > I thought of something else which may or may not be helpful here.
> > Extending the theme created by the ExpectedException and
> > Expicit attributes, I thought a [Conditional] attribute might
> > be helpful.  It might serve no purpose other than
> > information, but if a test is decorated as Conditional,
> > Assumptions cause a "Not-Run" situation.  If the method is
> > not decorated as such, ASSumptions cause a failure.  Any
> > bennefit seen here?
> >
> > dmp
> >
> > Vaughn, Clifton wrote:
> > > I've read one paper, but I don't recall it explaining great detail
> > > about the Assume.That.  I was still left with the question
> > of how the
> > > runner would indicate that the data didn't meet an
> > assumption when you
> > > expected it to.  Maybe I'm still missing something though.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > cliff
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of
> > > Kelly Anderson
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 3:14 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [nunit-developer] Fwd: Fwd: Assume
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Vaughn, Clifton
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't think it needs to cause an error, but it should signal
that
> > >>
> > > the
> > >
> > >>  data didn't meet the assumptions unless along with the data you
> > >>
> > > included
> > >
> > >>  a flag to signal when an error should be thrown.
> > >>
> > >>  Either a signature like this:
> > >>
> > >>  Check.That(meetsAssumptions, 2+2, Is.EqualTo(data) )
> > >>
> > >>  Or meetsAssumptions is added as a condition.
> > >>
> > >>  Thanks
> > >>
> > >
> > > Cliff, out of curiosity, have you read any of the Theory
> > papers yet? I
> > > am curious only as to the context of your comment.
> > >
> > > -Kelly
> > >
> > >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > -
> > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges.
> > > Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > nunit-developer mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nunit-developer
> > >
> > >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all
> > challenges.
> > > Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > nunit-developer mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nunit-developer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all
> > challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > _______________________________________________
> > nunit-developer mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nunit-developer
> >
> 
> 
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> nunit-developer mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nunit-developer

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/