New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Test case fixture isolation with runtests
.
#96
Labels
Comments
Yeah, I believe that the
I think it'd be reasonable to add a variant that allows patterns for the fixtures, too. Something like:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
This is a similar issue to #24, but my query is about using runtests and a simple naming scheme/pattern to invoke test fixtures on a per test case basis. I'll explain by example...
My intent was to keep all my test-related stuff in a single schema (e.g.
tests
), with tests named something likewith fixtures:
Then invoke
runtests('tests', '^testcase2')
to just run the relevant fixtures and tests (i.e. a startup fixture followed by a single test using this example). From what I can see, this is a non-starter due to the way all fixtures are identified byfindfuncs
by prefix, irrespective of any pattern provided toruntests
.Am I barking up the right tree here? This seems a reasonable approach to me but I may be influenced by other testing frameworks. In principle it looks simple to restrict fixtures by name pattern as well but how to do this cleanly is less obvious... This leads me to wonder about alternative approaches (either for implementing this behaviour or my use case). At the moment I'm leaning towards severely restricting/dropping the use of text fixtures because they'd need to be universally applicable, which means I might as well not use
runtests
either.Any suggestions/comments?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: