On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:35:53 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:24:23 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote: > > BTW I have some plans to introduce optional explicit test ids that can > > be used for inter-test dependencies. E.g.: > > > > test_begin_subtest test-id-1 "A subtest" > > .... > > ;; in another test requre that test-id-1 passed > > test_require_subtest test-id-1 > > Would the required test need to be listed twice, both on the > begin_subtest line *and* in the require_subtest line? > > And again, why would the test id have to be any different that the > existing test names? The tests already have names, so I don't > understand why we would want to introduce some other kind of > identification. Seems like it's just going to add extra confusion. > What you listed in the other email are test scripts, each with many subtests. I was talking about dependencies between subtests, not test scripts. > And speaking of which, I sometimes worry that the test infrastructure > itself is getting too complicated. Pretty soon we're going to need > tests for the tests. We already have them :) Though, pretty limited. > I don't necessarily see the need to all of these > extra features in the test suite, so I worry that it's just making > everything harder to debug. > I hope we can keep balance here. Without inter-subtest dependencies, we have unhealthy situation where some tests may be skipped because of missing prerequisites, but test that depend on them are failing. The only alternative I see is to rewrite these tests to remove the dependencies. But that would complicate test cases itself, so I believe inter-subtest dependencies is a better option. Regards, Dmitry > jamie.