On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM, aslak hellesoy <aslak.helle...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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 on_failure "..." do ???? > > > >> > >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
