TestRunner anomaly

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

TestRunner anomaly

larrry
When I run my tests in TestRunner by clicking Run Selected, they all pass.  When I run them by clicking Run Coverage, a couple fail.

Does anyone know why that might be?

thanks.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TestRunner anomaly

Stéphane Ducasse
do you have dependencies between your tests?
Do you use tearDown to clean your resources?
Stef

On Sep 22, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Larry White wrote:

> When I run my tests in TestRunner by clicking Run Selected, they all pass.  When I run them by clicking Run Coverage, a couple fail.
>
> Does anyone know why that might be?
>
> thanks.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TestRunner anomaly

Lukas Renggli
"Run Coverage" is broken on Cog.

Lukas

On 22 September 2011 17:48, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

> do you have dependencies between your tests?
> Do you use tearDown to clean your resources?
> Stef
>
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Larry White wrote:
>
>> When I run my tests in TestRunner by clicking Run Selected, they all pass.  When I run them by clicking Run Coverage, a couple fail.
>>
>> Does anyone know why that might be?
>>
>> thanks.
>
>
>



--
Lukas Renggli
www.lukas-renggli.ch

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TestRunner anomaly

larrry
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
I think I've tracked it down to contention for a mutex. That would explain why they're always failing in pairs. Do the tests run in parallel in TestRunner? 


On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
do you have dependencies between your tests?
Do you use tearDown to clean your resources?
Stef

On Sep 22, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Larry White wrote:

> When I run my tests in TestRunner by clicking Run Selected, they all pass.  When I run them by clicking Run Coverage, a couple fail.
>
> Does anyone know why that might be?
>
> thanks.