[Issue 4653] More unit test functions should be added - like assertEqual() and assertNotEqual()
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4653
--- Comment #8 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com 2013-02-25
14:48:41 PST ---
I don't know whether assertEqual and other others will ever get in
(assertThrown/assertNotThrown did), but the implementation can be seriously
simplified.
Here's an example of some assert functions (without a custom user message, but
that could be easily added):
import core.exception;
import std.string;
template assertOp(string op)
{
void assertOp(T1, T2)(T1 lhs, T2 rhs,
string file = __FILE__,
size_t line = __LINE__)
{
string msg = format((%s %s %s) failed., lhs, op, rhs);
mixin(format(q{
if (!(lhs %s rhs)) throw new AssertError(msg, file, line);
}, op));
}
}
alias assertOp!== assertEqual;
alias assertOp!!= assertNotEqual;
alias assertOp! assertGreaterThan;
alias assertOp!= assertGreaterThanOrEqual;
unittest
{
assertEqual(1, 1);
assertNotEqual(1, 2);
assertGreaterThan(2, 1);
assertGreaterThanOrEqual(2, 2);
}
That's a huge save of line numbers. Admittedly both of us have learned a few
tricks since 2010. :)
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4653] More unit test functions should be added - like assertEqual() and assertNotEqual()
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4653 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com 2013-02-25 15:16:30 PST --- Cute. assertPred was the evolution of this, and it did a lot of nice stuff (though it wouldn't surprise me it all if it could be improved), but it got shot down as far as Phobos goes. std.datetime still uses a version of it internally, but I'm slowing phasing it out. The problem is the template overhead. I'm pretty sure that it's one of reasons (possibly _the_ reason) why Walter can't build std.datetime's unit tests (due to running out of memory) on his older FreeBSD machine (which he still complains about from time to time). I still like it, but it _does_ instantiate a lot of templates. Ultimately, I think that most people just use assert at this point and deal with it. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4653] More unit test functions should be added - like assertEqual() and assertNotEqual()
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4653 Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #7 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com 2012-01-20 23:10:55 PST --- For better or worse, this has been subsumed by issue# 5547. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4653] More unit test functions should be added - like assertEqual() and assertNotEqual()
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4653 Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #723 is|0 |1 obsolete|| --- Comment #6 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmail.com 2010-08-28 17:20:03 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=742) Some useful unit testing functions. I've been using these functions heavily in my unit tests, and have them to be _very_ useful. However, I found that using to enclose the toString() result of the object in an error message causes confusion with opCmp. e.g. assertOpCmp!(==)() failed: 1 2 is too hard to read. So, I've changed it to use []. e.g. assertOpCmp!(==)() failed: [1] [2] So, I'm posting the updated code. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4653] More unit test functions should be added - like assertEqual() and assertNotEqual()
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4653 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmail.com 2010-08-17 23:08:49 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=723) Some useful unit testing functions. Okay. I'm attaching some functions that I've already done which seem quite useful - namely assertEqual(), assertNotEqual(), and assertOpCmp(). The first two should be obvious, but assertOpCmp() takes a template parameter of ==, , or and tests that operation using opCmp(). The resulting assertion on failure not only prints out the two values that you gave it to test, but it also prints out whether the first was actually ==, , or the second. The attached file also includes assertExcThrown() and assertExcNotThrown() from http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4644 , since I used them in the unit tests for assertEqual(), assertNotEqual(), and assertOpCmp(). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4653] More unit test functions should be added - like assertEqual() and assertNotEqual()
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4653 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmail.com 2010-08-16 02:09:45 PDT --- Hmm. I forgot the in on the expected parameter. Oh well, it should be added. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4653] More unit test functions should be added - like assertEqual() and assertNotEqual()
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4653 Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com 2010-08-16 07:00:16 PDT --- AFAIK you could make a template that accepts a string literal (I think alias is used for that), e.g. x y or x == y, which would maybe be a better idea than to have duplicated code and a dozen assertEqual, assertNotEqual special purpose functions. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
