On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2011 23:07:51 Jacob Carlborg wrote:I'm against it. I think that the compiler/runtime should be fixed so that each
> I think it is, don't know what others think. What it does is it catches
> AssertErrors so other unit tests can continue to run and then gives a
> nice report at the end.
unit test block is run in a module even if one fails. That would solve the
problem quite nicely IMHO, and that's already _supposed_ to be how it works.
It just isn't properly implemented in that regard yet. And I'm against
unittest blocks running any code after a single failure. So, I don't think
that any additional unit testing framework is necessary.
- Jonathan M Davis