On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM, aslak hellesoy <aslak.helle...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
Somebody move this to a ticket please :) > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
