On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 15:07:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 04:55:25PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 07/05/14 16:05, Dicebot wrote:
>Have never liked that fancy description syntax of "smart"
>testing
>frameworks.
I hate plain unit test blocks with just a bunch of asserts.
It's
impossible to know that's being tested.
[...]
Huh? Isn't that what unittest blocks are about? To verify that
certain
assumed conditions are actually true at runtime?
Verbal descriptions can be put in comments, if need be, can't
they?
They can. But those descriptions are not included in failing test
output. What I think Jacob might be getting to as well is that
assertEquals or the more RSpec-like "foo.should equal 3" is more
readable than the raw asserts.
The context matters. In some frameworks that means using test
names like testThatWhenIDoThisThenTheOtherThingActuallyHappens
(which we'd get if we can have named unit tests), RSpec tries to
be more readable but in the end it's all about:
1) Documenting what the code is supposed to do
2) Knowing what test failed and what it was testing
Atila
