The Inbox: ToolsTests-jr.95.mcz

Am 19.04.2020 18:04:04 schrieb Jakob Reschke <[hidden email]>:

I think there were already similar tests, so I added another.

It might be more useful to have an integration test though: remote
control a debugger to create a new method and check the generated
source.

Without any such tests, the only way to detect regressions is to check
manually, and nobody will explicitly check for this, right?

Am Sa., 18. Apr. 2020 um 14:54 Uhr schrieb Thiede, Christoph
:
>
> I like Tools-jr.956! However, I still see very little value in these tests ...
>
>
> Best,
>
> Christoph
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Squeak-dev im Auftrag von [hidden email]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. April 2020 11:36:20
> An: [hidden email]
> Betreff: [squeak-dev] The Inbox: ToolsTests-jr.95.mcz
>
> A new version of ToolsTests was added to project The Inbox:
> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/ToolsTests-jr.95.mcz
>
> ==================== Summary ====================
>
> Name: ToolsTests-jr.95
> Author: jr
> Time: 12 April 2020, 11:36:19.948623 am
> UUID: 00bf69cd-641f-a849-b226-6249774e46dc
> Ancestors: ToolsTests-mt.94
>
> Add test for argument name if the argument is a block.
>
> See Tools-jr.956
>
> =============== Diff against ToolsTests-mt.94 ===============
>
> Item was added:
> + ----- Method: DebuggerExtensionsTest>>testBlockGeneralize (in category 'tests - canonical argument names') -----
> + testBlockGeneralize
> + | outer |
> + outer := nil.
> + self assert: 'Block' equals: [] canonicalArgumentName;
> + assert: 'Block' equals: [{outer. self}] canonicalArgumentName.!
>
>
>