On 29/01/2009, at 1:00 PM, r_j_h_box...@yahoo.com wrote:
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
Hi Randy. I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. In short, are you
wondering how to generate expectation failure messages that are more
verbose and contextual?
Cheers,
Nick
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
