On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected] > wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 2011, at 7:44 AM, laurent laffont wrote: > > > Camillo and Dennis, > > > > Thanks for answer and yes, I think you're right about using > PhExample/Mocketry DSL, that's the way to go. > > except that I would not patch SUnit but have another Testing framework for > that. > And I\m not sure that I want to write should equals:..... not enought > experience to have a good point of view > > I don't know about PhExample but Mocketry does not patch SUnit but provide extensions to Object / SmallInteger / ... for the DSL part. It loads easily and also have an HelpSystem book :) Gofer it squeaksource: 'MetacelloRepository'; package: 'ConfigurationOfMocketry'; load. ConfigurationOfMocketry load. 1 should equal: 1. I think I will use it for TWM. Laurent. > > > Laurent. > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Dennis Schetinin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > 2011/6/22 laurent laffont <[email protected]> > > IMO having the expected value before is the right way ! Do you TDD ? It > makes a lot of sense for me to write assert: expected equals: actual. Am I > alone ? > > > > I practice TDD, and I start tests with assertions (after naming them). > But I'm not sure I specify expected value first, as I'm focused on the > result (I write the test for). Btw, I use Mocketry and exploit its sugar (or > DSL?) for specifications there. So, I write: > > > > actualValue should equal: expectedValue. > > > > That is, after I've decided on a test case and named it, I think: what > should I test? That's the actualValue. I name and write it. And only after > that, I think about the value it should have… well, in most cases at least. > > > > Anyway, I'm not sure an order I use to write assertion should be repeated > by assertion messages. Just as order I use to write a test (name -> > assertion -> the way to fetch the actual value -> …) is not reflected by > test code. It's much more important to have a readable and understandable > (after many months) code. And for me it's much more natural to read it this > way: > > > > self assert: actualValue equals: expectedValue > > > > > > > > If you do TDD, you have first to decide what you expect. You don't know > how to get it because the code doesn't exist yet. So you usually I write > > > > self assert: 'i want this' equals: > > > > then stop because I have to think about the interface / selectors / > object I want. So it matches the flow of thought when I'm writing tests. > > > > And the other weird thing is that with this "fix" I now have to change > hundred of tests I've written to be semantically correct !!!! > > > > > > Laurent. > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Sean P. DeNigris < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > > > > I don't understand Sean's problem. > > > > > > > Still using 1.2.2 :) Thanks for fixing it. > > > > Sean > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/assert-equals-feels-backwards-tp3614760p3615548.html > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dennis Schetinin > > > > >
