What do you suggest ? Right now, a unit test has to inherit from TestCase, seems quite logical to me.
You want any object to be able to contain unit tests ? How do you want to mark them ? With a pragma ? What if I forget the pragma ? ;-) IOW, what exactly is the problem ? > On 23 Apr 2019, at 13:14, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote: > > I just got burned by tests not inheriting from a TestCase superclass… I note > that in 2017, Cyril tried to argue to get this changed to work just like > normal objects (proposing that for P7 tests works like any other object…) but > I think it was just too difficult to argue against a decision made so long > ago. > > I tried to follow the 2017 logic about why you would want tests to operate > differently than other objects, but I couldn’t understand it. I did see that > some numbers run against Squeak Trunk argued that it was fine …. but I’m left > wondering about all the people with individual projects like me that just > expect objects to behave like objects and not have unexpected behaviour. > Deviating seems like extra complexity that I’d prefer not to have to worry > about. > > Given Pharo is revisiting the concept of testing (with Dr Test) - could we > possibly introduce the normal object behaviour somehow? Possibly we could > have a new superclass for Tests - and use it to move forward without breaking > existing stuff and those who want to stick with this other way of thinking? > > > Tim > > >
