Re: [Cppunit-devel] REQUEST: throw user-defined errors in setUp() and tearDown()
Brought to you by:
blep
From: Baptiste L. <gai...@fr...> - 2002-07-11 17:42:39
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Armin" <Arm...@si...> To: "'Baptiste Lepilleur'" <gai...@fr...> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [Cppunit-devel] REQUEST: throw user-defined errors in setUp() and tearDown() > Is there a reason why we do not support assertion in setUp() and tearDown()? > The code could be easily modified to support this. No, just never got around doing it. > > IMHO the general question is, what should be done in setUp() and tearDown() > respectively. Personally, I use them to provide everything that is common to > all test methods in a class. This also includes setting up a particular As far as I know, that is the whole purpose of those methods. > state of my (product code) environment that is a precondition for all the > tests in a testcase class. And of course, this will lead to code that might > fail (for whatever reason). Therefore I like the idea of being able to have > asserts in the setUp() and tearDown() methods, because these would lead to a > more precise error/failure message, why the test-methods couldn't be > executed successfully. And locating bugs in our programs is the primary goal > of this project, isn't it? You can still use assertion, you just won't get the failure detail (at the current time). Baptiste. |