On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 16:09:28 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
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
You don't need artificial pseudo syntax for that.
assert!("==") + named tests is good enough to get the context and
for detailed investigation you need file and line number anyway.
Stuff like RSpec is extreme opposite of KISS.