Does somebody use resumable test failures?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Does somebody use resumable test failures?

Guillermo Polito
We have a set of methods like

#assert:description:resumable: 

That 
 - have no users besides the tests that test the feature (no real tests using it)
 - there are two implementations and the one in TAssertable is broken (sends #isResumable: that has no implementors)

Does somebody see some value in this method?


Guille
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Does somebody use resumable test failures?

Damien Cassou-2

Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> writes:

> We have a set of methods like
>
> #assert:description:resumable:
>
> That
>  - have no users besides the tests that test the feature (no real tests
> using it)
>  - there are two implementations and the one in TAssertable is broken
> (sends #isResumable: that has no implementors)
>
> Does somebody see some value in this method?

Pillar uses them but I don't know why:

testParseLevel1
  | wiki text tree |
  wiki := '!foo'.
  tree := PRDocument new
    add: ((PRHeader new)
      level: 1;
      add: (PRText content: 'foo');
      yourself);
    yourself.
  self assertWiki: wiki equalsTree: tree.

assertWiki: aString equalsTree: aDocument
  "Assert that parsing aString results in aDocument."

  self
    assert: (self parser parse: aString) = aDocument
    description: aString
    resumable: true

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without
losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill