Hi all,
I've found myself writing a thing I think is less than optimal, looking for
suggestions. The context is, I'm testing a result, and as a part of that test,
I might verify two or three things, which are individually relevant but not
really discrete results (?).
Here's my thinking process, using a toy example:
foo.should == bar (or foo.should_not be_nil)
> expected not to be nil, but was
(hm, not very informative)
if( foo == nil )
"failure to setup foo".should == "foo should be set to the thing that will
be rendered"
end
> expected "foo should be set to the thing that will be rendered",
> got "failure to setup foo" (using ==)
I've used this, by example, for a test on a dependency (imagemagick), where if
the dependency isn't found, I show a decent message with info the tester can
use to resolve it. And, as I mentioned, I've used it for revealing more
details in cases where the it "" + the generic error aren't informative.
I'm satisfied using this method for things like detecting a failure to use a
test-helper correctly - works fine, doesn't get in my way as part of the
documentation. Which brings me to the problem I'm concerned about:
With this method, nothing come out in the generated spec-docs to represent the
thing I'm conditionally requiring.
I guess I could get more fine-grained with my it()'s, but I've been preferring
a more general statement for it(), that gives the sense without the detail.
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Randy_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
