> On Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:08:23 PM UTC-4, Sal Mangano wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I wanted a unittest framework that worked more like unittest in python
>>>> (or xUnit in in other languages) so I
>>>> wrote [email protected]:smangano/JLTest.git. If you find it useful great. I
>>>> am
>>>> still new to Julia so if you find anything showing poor taste I am happy
>>>> to
>>>> get critique and/or suggestions for improvement. I'll try to add better
>>>> docs but I think it is pretty self explanatory if you look at
>>>> test/runtests.jl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Re: macros, in places where you have macros that should take a function, or
that will usually be called with a begin ... end block, you can often
replace them with a plain old function and simplify the implementation.
Julia's `do` syntax makes this especially easy. Same goes for macros that
take a string and don't use it to generate code.
Borrowing the example from the readme:
using JLTest
@testcase begin
@casename "Mytest Tests"
#Some code
x = 0
#Function to be called before each test (optional)
@setUp () -> (x+=1)
#Function to be called after each test (optional)
@tearDown () -> (x=0)
@test begin
@testname "A Simple Test" #Name of test (optional)
@assertEqual(x,1)
end
#more tests or code...
end # end of test case
Could become
using JLTest
testcase() do
casename("Mytest Tests")
#Some code
x = 0
#Function to be called before each test (optional)
setUp() do
x += 1
end
#Function to be called after each test (optional)
tearDown() do
x=0
end
test() do
testname("A Simple Test") #Name of test (optional)
@assertEqual(x,1)
end
#more tests or code...
end # end of test case
So concretely, I'm suggesting testcase, casename, setup, teardown, test,
and testname could (should?) maybe all be functions instead of macros.
The assertions are probably best left as macros, since they actually get
something out of delayed evaluation (i.e. being able to print the original
expresions when they fail).
