From: "Dominique Devienne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I personally believe it's unfortunate it's been named that way. It makes it > quite un-JUnit like to me, and inconsistent with the existing Jelly > assertEquals. Oh well, I haven't started using Jelly yet, just getting > interested by it (and your own interest to it makes it interesting to me ;-)
Would you prefer "assertThrows" instead of "assertThrown"? Now I come to think about it, I do to. Knut do you have a strong preference either way? Maybe we should switch it - its a relatively new feature afterall so it shouldn't break too much. James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > --DD > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wannheden, Knut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:07 AM > To: 'Jakarta Commons Users List' > Subject: RE: [jelly] unit testing: detecting exceptions > > Dominique, > > Funny that you found the same pattern useful in Java aswell. There you at > least don't have the problem that the try and catch blocks are disconnected > as with Jelly. Well now it's "assertThrown" afterall. See > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/jelly/tags.html#junit:assertThrown > . > > -- > knut > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
