On 09.07.2013, at 23:28, Camillo Bruni <camillobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2013-07-09, at 21:23, Frank Shearar <frank.shea...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 9 July 2013 19:45, Camillo Bruni <camillobr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I continue my rant with should:raise:description: >>> >>> a) self should: [ Error signal: 'error message' ] raise: Halt description: >>> 'message'. >>> b) self should: [ 1 + 2 ] raise: Halt description: >>> 'message'. >>> >>> In the first case you do not get the 'message' but 'error message'. >>> In the second case you get the 'message'. >>> >>> Does the description make sense in this case? >>> 1. if you signal Halt everything is fine >>> 2. Every other case is a failure >>> 3. In case a) an internal failure happens so the test fails anyway, fine, >>> but no description >>> 4. A strange? case where the tests actually DO pass but we nevertheless >>> want to print a description. >>> >>> Can anybody give me a convincing case for 4? >>> >>> Sorry, after this I will stop :D >> >> In case (a) I would actually expect to see something like: "message. >> Unexpected Error raised: 'error message'". >> >> In case (b) I'd want to see "message: no Halt raised" >> >> I can't think of why you would want a description for a success case, >> so #4 just seems weird! > > exactly! :) I agree on that ;). Now the question is on how to properly fix > this > for debugging. Since you actually want to debug on the unexpected Exception > in > case a)... YESSSS!! That's about the thing I hate the most about SUnit: if a testrun fails because #should: fails, the signaler context is gone. That's SO ANNYOING! > > I'll check my magic box..
