On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:25 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:00 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? > > I can't think of anything that wouldn't result in something that requires > more writing as of now. Maybe we need a new construct like: > it "does something" do > with_message "this is a more specific message" do > foo.should == bar > end > end > WDYT? >
I think that would be useful. Maybe make it more explicit that it's an error message: on_error "bla" do ... end >> >> Thanks, >> >> Randy >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rspec-users mailing list >> rspec-users@rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > -- Aslak (::) _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
