On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Marc Santhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree. But if I do the same reading process in the readers source
> and in the test case I have two spots having the same code. Fixing
> errors or making changes at one place only would be nice.
>
> How could I sol
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 11:10:19AM +0100, Marc Santhoff wrote:
>
> How could I solve this problem in a better way?
By using SetUp and TearDown routines.
Tom
--
E-MAIL: T.Verhoeff @ TUE.NL | Dept. of Math. & Comp. Science
PHONE: +31 40 247 41 25| Technische Universiteit Eind
Am Sonntag, den 07.12.2008, 09:20 +0200 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Marc Santhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Since I can save a lot of work depending on this orders I'd like to do
> > so. ;)
>
> Could you explain, I don't fully understand your statement.
I
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Marc Santhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since I can save a lot of work depending on this orders I'd like to do
> so. ;)
Could you explain, I don't fully understand your statement.
> Is there any argument speaking against assuming fixed order behaviour?
One o
Hi,
currently I'm observing the following behaviour:
- test cases are run in the order of their registration
- testing procedures (per test) are run in the order of their
declaration in the test class
Since I can save a lot of work depending on this orders I'd like to do
so. ;)
Is there any arg
