On 29/01/2009, at 2:18 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
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 ????
I like "on_failure", as it's consistent with RSpec's output. Eg:
31 examples, 0 failures
What could be done to make the construct more sentence-like? If used
in this manner:
it 'should do something' do
on_failure "@foo is nil" do
@foo.should_not be_nil
end
end
It reads like this to me:
If "@foo is nil" fails, execute the block.
These are a bit verbose, but what do you think these approaches?:
http://gist.github.com/54726
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
