I don't like having the Unit Tests so coupled with the code. Many times I implement Unit Tests that doesn't match 1:1 with a class. It is... the TestCase subclass doesn't have a corresponding class (eg. SomeFeatureTest, with no SomeFeature class in the system).
Regards, Esteban A. Maringolo 2013/11/18 Camille Teruel <camille.ter...@gmail.com>: > > On 17 nov. 2013, at 15:16, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > I stumbled across this idea when Markus Gaelli chose it as a PhD topic about > ten years ago (man, I'm old). The main idea was not to provide tests, but > examples that happened to have assertions. The goal was twofold: (1) provide > live documentation with real objects, (2) provide another way of composing > tests. > > The project did not really come to fruition, but I still think this is > highly interesting topic. Part of the ideas were later implemented in > Phexample (http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Phexample/Phexample/) and > JExample (http://scg.unibe.ch/research/jexample). > > Cheers, > Doru > > > There was a presentation of the Pyret language at SCRIPT workshop last week. > This way of coupling unit tests with functions is indeed interesting. > One the one hand I feel it's like a mixing of concerns, on the other hand > it's push unit-tests into the language. > The funny part is that the examples provided are used to type the function: > > fun id(x): > x > where: > id(3) is 3 > id("bla") is "bla" > end > > is typed as 'a -> 'a whereas: > > fun id(x): > x > where: > id(3) is 3 > end > > is typed as int -> int > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Andy Burnett > <andy.burn...@knowinnovation.com> wrote: >> >> I have just come across the Pyret language. It looks interesting, but the >> part which particularly caught my interest was the way that they had built >> the unit tests directly into the classes, rather than having separate test >> classes. >> >> I think this is an interesting idea. It seems as though it would be easier >> to manage writing tests if everything were in one location. And this - might >> - mean that people were more likely to write tests. >> >> Has anyone else looked at this, and have an opinion on whether it would be >> a good addition to Pharo 4/5/X? >> >> Cheers >> Andy > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" > >
