- Renamed project to "Nevermore" - Moved repo to https://github.com/evanescence/nevermore - Test functions are required to return all assertions as a seq - Added "around-each" fixtures
The way fixtures and test-suites work (and work together) makes me think of Datomic. -Steven On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Steven Degutis <sbdegu...@gmail.com>wrote: > Also, I came up with a solution for simple around-each fixtures. It would > use a declarative style just like (defn ^:test ...), but it would be (defn > ^:around-each ...). And its metadata would contain a matcher-fn that > matches against a test-fn's metadata. > > This way you could define a bunch of tests marked ^:db, and have an > around-each fixture with :db as its matcher. > > The de-coupling means you don't need grouping or nesting to have multiple > fixtures applied to multiple tests. It also means you can specify both > tests and fixtures on a per-feature level. > > Unfortunately this solution does't carry over to around-all fixtures, > because if several tests belong to multiple around-all fixtures, and not > the same ones either, they would have to be run multiple times. > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Steven Degutis <sbdegu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> The vast majority of my tests look like: do some setup, do some action, >> make a half-dozen assertions. Almost always in that order. >> >> The only reason I can think of that I would need to have assertions in >> the middle is if I plan to do more setup and action and assertions >> afterwards. >> >> And in that case, I'm really just writing a second test that should >> probably be its own test-fn. And if it relies on the setup from the first >> test, I should probably just extract it out into a function with common >> setup. >> >> I think I'm almost sold on this idea now. >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:07 AM, John D. Hume >> <duelin.mark...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> I've never tried it, but I like the idea of test fns returning their >>> results. >>> >>> On Jul 24, 2013 8:30 AM, "Steven Degutis" <sbdegu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning >>> test results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of >>> magic in the lib. >>> > >>> > >>> > ;; current style (side-effecty) >>> > >>> > (defn test-1 [] >>> > (let [foo (get-foo)] >>> > (expect empty? foo) >>> > (expect awesome? foo))) >>> > >>> > ;; proposed style (more functional) >>> > >>> > (defn test-1 [] >>> > (let [foo (get-foo)] >>> > [(expect empty? foo) >>> > (expect awesome? foo)])) >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Clojure" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com >>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >>> your first post. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Clojure" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
