Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

#assert:equals:

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

10 messages Options

Sean P. DeNigris

#assert:equals:

Administrator

This pattern is common in our tests: "self assert: a = b."

I much prefer "self assert: a equals: b."

It makes it easier to diagnose failing tests, especially if a or b are expressions with side-effects. Do you agree?

Sean

Cheers,
Sean

Mariano Martinez Peck

Re: #assert:equals:

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email]> wrote:

This pattern is common in our tests: "self assert: a = b."

I much prefer "self assert: a equals: b."

It makes it easier to diagnose failing tests, especially if a or b are
expressions with side-effects. Do you agree?

I do. I use #assert:equals: in most of my tests.

Sean

--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/assert-equals-tp4636050.html
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Stéphane Ducasse

Re: #assert:equals:

In reply to this post by Sean P. DeNigris

I never understood the problems :)

Stef

On Jun 22, 2012, at 3:53 AM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:

> This pattern is common in our tests: "self assert: a = b."
>
> I much prefer "self assert: a equals: b."
>
> It makes it easier to diagnose failing tests, especially if a or b are
> expressions with side-effects. Do you agree?
>
> Sean
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/assert-equals-tp4636050.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

EstebanLM

Re: #assert:equals:

me neither. a=b is clear enough for me. If I want more detail, I add a description.
but perhaps I'm loosing something that I'm not seeing.

Esteban

On Jun 22, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

> I never understood the problems :)
>
> Stef
>
> On Jun 22, 2012, at 3:53 AM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
>
>> This pattern is common in our tests: "self assert: a = b."
>>
>> I much prefer "self assert: a equals: b."
>>
>> It makes it easier to diagnose failing tests, especially if a or b are
>> expressions with side-effects. Do you agree?
>>
>> Sean
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/assert-equals-tp4636050.html
>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>

Camillo Bruni-3

Re: #assert:equals:

On 2012-06-22, at 09:39, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:

> me neither. a=b is clear enough for me. If I want more detail, I add a description.
> but perhaps I'm loosing something that I'm not seeing.
>
> Esteban

error messages + inspect???

I hate to go and re-eavluate the code to see what was wrong during comparison...

like that you keep the two arguments somewhere up in the stack and you can go
and simply go and see what went wrong.

consider

self assert: self someExpressionReturningFalse = self someExpressionReturningTrue

how the heck do you know what went wrong?

assert:equals: is the thing to use.

I don't like it particularly, it feels too java-ish, I prefer much more the "shoulder"
framework written in bern.

self someExpressionReturningFalse should = self someExpressionReturningTrue
ˆˆˆˆˆˆ

that somehow feels much more natural to me :P

Sean P. DeNigris

Re: #assert:equals:

Administrator

Camillo Bruni-3 wrote

I hate to go and re-eavluate the code to see what was wrong during comparison...
...self assert: self someExpressionReturningFalse = self someExpressionReturningTrue
how the heck do you know what went wrong?

Yes, that's exactly it!

Camillo Bruni-3 wrote

I don't like it particularly, it feels too java-ish, I prefer much more the "shoulder"
framework written in bern.
self someExpressionReturningFalse should = self someExpressionReturningTrue

+1!

Re the framework, do you mean Phexample? I *really* like the matchers, like the one you mentioned above. Although I don't like the way tests build on each other. It's a great idea, but a failing given should cause the test to be skipped, which we don't have in Pharo (the best we can do is probably have it be an error, which is better than a failing test, but not by much)

Cheers,
Sean

EstebanLM

Re: #assert:equals:

So, is clarity when executing vs clarity when reading (because "a=b" is a lot clearer that "a equals: b").
Is that?
Don't get me wrong... I'm not struggling against it, I'm just trying to understand the issue.

Esteban

On Jun 22, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:

>
> Camillo Bruni-3 wrote
>>
>> I hate to go and re-eavluate the code to see what was wrong during
>> comparison...
>> ...self assert: self someExpressionReturningFalse = self
>> someExpressionReturningTrue
>> how the heck do you know what went wrong?
>>
> Yes, that's exactly it!
>
>
> Camillo Bruni-3 wrote
>>
>> I don't like it particularly, it feels too java-ish, I prefer much more
>> the "shoulder"
>> framework written in bern.
>> self someExpressionReturningFalse should = self
>> someExpressionReturningTrue
>>
> +1!
>
> Re the framework, do you mean Phexample? I *really* like the matchers, like
> the one you mentioned above. Although I don't like the way tests build on
> each other. It's a great idea, but a failing given should cause the test to
> be skipped, which we don't have in Pharo (the best we can do is probably
> have it be an error, which is better than a failing test, but not by much)
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/assert-equals-tp4636050p4636136.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Camillo Bruni-3

Re: #assert:equals:

On 2012-06-22, at 16:51, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:

> So, is clarity when executing vs clarity when reading (because "a=b" is a lot clearer that "a equals: b").
> Is that?
> Don't get me wrong... I'm not struggling against it, I'm just trying to understand the issue.
>
> Esteban

yes :)

a should = b

would be somehow in the middle :P

Steven R. Baker

Re: #assert:equals:

I'm working on this. Slowly.

-Steven

On 2012-06-22, at 11:13 AM, Camillo Bruni wrote:

>
> On 2012-06-22, at 16:51, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
>
>> So, is clarity when executing vs clarity when reading (because "a=b" is a lot clearer that "a equals: b").
>> Is that?
>> Don't get me wrong... I'm not struggling against it, I'm just trying to understand the issue.
>>
>> Esteban
>
> yes :)
>
> a should = b
>
> would be somehow in the middle :P
>
>

Sean P. DeNigris

Re: #assert:equals:

Administrator

Steven Baker wrote

I'm working on this. Slowly.

The Phexample matchers are very close to Rspec and work well...

Cheers,
Sean