I see the only correct way to build a good testing environment: tests should be basically objects, not methods.
-- Best regards, Dennis Schetinin 2013/12/3 Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]> > Attila Magyar wrote > > The reason for having the base class is to verify the expectations at the > > end of the tests automatically. Doing this manually is possible (context > > assertSatisfied), but probably people would forget it without this > > automatic mechanism. In Java for example, mock libraries use custom JUnit > > runners to do this, but I haven't found something like this in SUnit. If > > there is a better way to do this please let me know. > > I understand the motivation. My question is how do we create appropriate > hooks so that we don't get into these conflicts? > > I made a few enhancements to BabyMock: > - anyArgument now inst var of BabyMockTestCase, similar to BmAnyMessage > - #does: now optionally takes arguments > > The second one turns: > > handle := FMOD_SYSTEM new. > > library should > receive: #FMOD_System_Create:; > with: [ :a | > a = handle > ifTrue: [ handle := a. handle handle: 20. true ] > ifFalse: [ false ] ]; > answer: 0. > library should > receive: #FMOD_System_Init:; > with: [ :a | a = handle ]; > answers: 0. > > ...into: > > library should > receive: #FMOD_System_Create:; > with: FMOD_SYSTEM new; > does: [ :h | h handle: 20. 0 ]. > library should > receive: #FMOD_System_Init:; > with: [ :a | a handle = 20 ]; > answers: 0. > > ... eliminating the temporary, and the separate #with: and #answer: send in > the first expectation. > > I pushed them to http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/SeanDeNigris/FMOD/main/ since > that's where I was using them, but if you give me access to the BM repo and > you like the changes, I will clean them up and push there. > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Unifying-Testing-Ideas-tp4726787p4726855.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > >
