> Agreed. I prefer, though, to use BlockClosure>>assert, so usage
> becomes
> something like:
>
> [2 + 2 = 5] assert.
>
> I see that this is already implemented, based on Object>>assert:
I agree this is more concise, there is no reference to "self" to
formulate the assertion. Having to use "self" in "self assert:" has
more to do with an unnecessary convention than bringing a real value.
In that case, disabling assertion has to be done by modifying
BlockClosure>>assert.
> There are inconsistencies that bother me.
>
> * TestCase>>assert: in most Smalltalks accepts only a boolean. In
> Pharo,
> it accepts either a boolean or a block. This makes tests less
> portable.
>
> * TestCase>>assert:equals: (a very useful method) does not accept a
> block. Anyone used to giving blocks to #assert: would probably expect
> this method to accept a block.
The method assert:equals: should accept a block in my opinion.
TestCase>>assert:equals: may be rewritten as:
assert: expectedAsBlockOrValue equals: actualAsBlockOrValue
| v1 v2 |
v1 := expectedAsBlockOrValue value.
v2 := actualAsBlockOrValue value.
^ self
assert: (v1 = v2)
description: (self comparingStringBetween: v1 and: v2)
> * Object assert: accepts a boolean or a block. I don't know of any
> standard for this.
No standard as far as I know
> * BlockClosure>>assert does not take any arguments, so I feel it is
> very
> clean.
But you need to modify it to cancel runtime checks
> Proposed changes: (based on earlier discussion plus personal opinion)
>
> TestCase>>assert: should only accept a boolean. This brings
> compatibility with other Smalltalks, and consistency with
> TestCase>>assert:equals:.
assert:equals: could also be updated.
Some test units in the image use [] as arguments to assert: and deny:.
StringTest is one of them.
> Object>>assert: should be removed/deprecated in favor of
> BlockClosure>>assert. This removes confusion with TestCase>>assert:.
Ideally, this is valuable. However, there is a number of tests that
use Object>>assert: (and not only my code :-). ZipEncoderTree is an
example
> Object>>assert:description: and Object>>assert:descriptionBlock:
> should
> be removed/deprecated in favor of (new)
> BlockClosure>>assertWithDescription:, which accepts either a block
> or a
> string. This provides convenient invariant and pre/post condition
> testing.
#assertWithDescription: is useful yes.
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
