On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Nick Hoffman <n...@deadorange.com> wrote: >> 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 > > I'll take that gist and raise you one: > > http://gist.github.com/54750 (Suggestion #3) >
Upped: http://gist.github.com/54758 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
