On 10 juil. 2013, at 16:45, Igor Stasenko wrote: > On 9 July 2013 22:45, Nicolas Cellier > <[email protected]> wrote: >> "should not raise an exceptional event whose description does not include" >> wow, who is crooked enough to use double negation ;) >> > > is it a convenience method for following: > > > [ self dosomething ] on: Error do: [:ex | > self assert: ex message includes:'whatever' ] > ?
Not really, because it doesn't fails if no exception is raised. > > as to me this is more readable and intent-revealing than using strange > double-negation.. What you want is a TAssertable>>#should:raise: that: - takes a one arg block as second argument that is evaluated with the exception thrown - fails if no exception is raised > > >> Nicolas >> >> >> 2013/7/9 Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> >>> >>> So + 1 :) >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - shouldnt: aBlock raise: anExceptionalEvent >>>>>> whoseDescriptionDoesNotInclude: subString description: aString >>>>>> - shouldnt: aBlock raise: anExceptionalEvent whoseDescriptionIncludes: >>>>>> subString description: aString >>>>>> >>>>>> I honestly cannot wrap my head around these two methods. >>>>> >>>>> They show that the code in the block raises an _informative_ >>>>> exception. So you get a FileNotFound exception... but what was the >>>>> missing file? I don't know! Noone bothered to mention it! >>>> >>>> >>>> no it is #shouldnt: it is the inverse. >>>> the #should:... handler methods are fine, but these specific two methods >>>> are just insane. >>>> I tried to reimplement them without looking at the original definition >>>> and I cannot come up with something that matches the name :) so there is >>>> definitely something wrong with it. >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >
