[Dev] automated tests != unit tests (was Re: Mock Reactor for tests?)

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 03:21 PM 6/7/2005 -0400, Mike Taylor wrote:
>On Jun 7, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>I've also investigated the run()/stop() issue, and as far as I can tell 
>>this should be a non-issue for tests that run using the Twisted default 
>>reactor (which is what Chandler uses).  The reason that you aren't 
>>supposed to use run()/stop() or certain other functions multiple times 
>>(AFAICT), is because certain GUI-platform-specific reactor 
>>implementations won't tolerate it.  However, tests that don't run with a 
>>GUI don't need to use a GUI-specific reactor, and we're not using one in 
>>Chandler currently anyway.
>
>Current unit tests do not use a GUI but real-soon-now we will have startup 
>unit tests and also unit tests that require the GUI.

A startup test isn't a unit test, and a test that requires a GUI is at 
least close to the line, if not over it.

Okay, I totally give up.  I can see that there is no way I'm going to 
convince everybody to stop calling all developer-written automated tests 
"unit" tests.  (All unit tests are developer-written automated tests, but 
not all developer-written automated tests are unit tests.)

I will try and make up a new, non-industry-standard term that *really* 
means unit test, which we can then foist upon the rest of the world.  And, 
since it will be a new term that nobody has ever heard before, everyone 
will believe me when I say that Chandler doesn't really have any.  :)