bjhess wrote:
> Interested to see my blog post name-dropped here.
>
> Philip, I assume you're the original assert{ 2.0 } Philip, yes?
>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2008/02/assert2.html
>
> I actually had thought that project was in stasis. I'm the only
> person I know using assert{ 2.0 }, but I do love it. The assert{ }
> syntax along with the useful failure output is a big win.
The version for Ruby 1.9 has a better layout at fault time. (I can factually
identify the freaking \n linefeeds in the {} block using Ripper! Woot!)
> Looks like you're adding on to that puppy - cool. Sadly, I haven't
> written an assert_select for a long while, so assert_xhtml isn't
> solving any pain points at this time. But I'll still happily go on
> using assert{ 2.0 } as is!
Np. Another goal is its sub-modules take care of themselves, and you don't need
to worry about them if you don't use them. xhtml.rb is not big enough for its
own product, and after the 1.9 transition I will be free to unify all the
diagnostic techniques into a seamless whole.
Folks, the point of the assert{ 2.0 } project is to make a lowly assertion as
powerful as CppUnit ASSERT() was for me in Visual Studio (back in the days when
MS still had a shred of relevance). When an assertion failed, it invoked a
debugger breakpoint, and you would see in one window...
- the test source
- the call stack
- sometimes the code source
- all your local variable's values.
There's no reason any assert should not give you all that. You should not have
to write extra at test time to get it - that would just slow you down!
>> --
>> Phlip
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
