Thanks for sharing.
Will check it out.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Steven Degutis wrote:
> - Renamed project to "Nevermore"
> - Moved repo to https://github.com/evanescence/nevermore
> - Test functions are required to return all assertions as a seq
> - Added "around-each" fixtures
>
> The
- Renamed project to "Nevermore"
- Moved repo to https://github.com/evanescence/nevermore
- Test functions are required to return all assertions as a seq
- Added "around-each" fixtures
The way fixtures and test-suites work (and work together) makes me think of
Datomic.
-Steven
On Wed, Jul 24, 2
Also, I came up with a solution for simple around-each fixtures. It would
use a declarative style just like (defn ^:test ...), but it would be (defn
^:around-each ...). And its metadata would contain a matcher-fn that
matches against a test-fn's metadata.
This way you could define a bunch of tests
The vast majority of my tests look like: do some setup, do some action,
make a half-dozen assertions. Almost always in that order.
The only reason I can think of that I would need to have assertions in the
middle is if I plan to do more setup and action and assertions afterwards.
And in that case
I've never tried it, but I like the idea of test fns returning their
results.
On Jul 24, 2013 8:30 AM, "Steven Degutis" wrote:
>
> Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning
test results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of
magic in the lib.
>
>
>
I think I may have been the one on IRC that provoked you to this
decision Steven, so I'm happy that you've put the project back up. I
certainly never intended that you not build something to suit your own
purposes, and I absolutely didn't intend to suggest you shouldn't put
software out there for
Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning test
results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of magic in
the lib.
;; current style (side-effecty)
(defn test-1 []
(let [foo (get-foo)]
(expect empty? foo)
(expect awesome? foo)))
;; proposed
First, the goal of Verily was not the same as Test2. It wasn't intended to
unify any existing test libs. It was really just meant to succeed
clojure.test in spirit. That's all.
Second, nobody "bullied" me into this decision. Some people asked how
Verily improved upon the alternatives, and, try as
I've never spoken to Steven in anything that wasn't a public email to this
list, so it wasn't me. I'm not sure who the self-proclaimed project
guardians are, but I just wanted to make sure no one thought I was trying
to "protect" https://github.com/jaycfields/expectations in anyway.
I don't actual
Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013 08:14:15 UTC+2 schrieb Steven Degutis:
>
> It's been brought to my attention that this project is an utter waste of
> time, brings no real improvement over the existing solutions, and was
> wrought in complete arrogance. So I've deleted the project. Sorry for
> wastin
It's been brought to my attention that this project is an utter waste of
time, brings no real improvement over the existing solutions, and was
wrought in complete arrogance. So I've deleted the project. Sorry for
wasting a thread on this.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Steven Degutis wrote:
>
Whoops. Looks like I didn't check the namespace well enough, there's
already a lib called "verily". (Sorry Justin.)
Will think up a new name soon.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Steven Degutis wrote:
> https://github.com/evanescence/verily
>
> Verily is a new testing lib with a few goals:
>
https://github.com/evanescence/verily
Verily is a new testing lib with a few goals:
- Build off existing Clojure concepts (functions, vars, etc)
- Be as functional/immutable as possible
- Be easy to use from terminal or REPL
- Have composable pieces that are easy to swap out
- Keep
13 matches
Mail list logo
