Am 25.10.15 um 16:33 schrieb Peter Uhnák:
> assert:equals: it's just more typing than #= with no additional outcome
I also disagree, but that may be also because maybe we write tests for
different purpse.
If you write tests just to test your code, then whatever... I don't do
that so I c
Hi Sven,
Am 25.10.15 um 11:45 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe:
On 25 Oct 2015, at 11:37, jtuc...@objektfabrik.de wrote:
Sorry guys, but today is my destructive day...
I think most of the assert:whatever: methods are a waste of time and energy and
just pollute SUnit with lots of methods that a
>
> > assert:equals: it's just more typing than #= with no additional outcome
>
I also disagree, but that may be also because maybe we write tests for
different purpse.
If you write tests just to test your code, then whatever... I don't do that
so I can't comment on that.
However if you do TDD,
> On 25 Oct 2015, at 11:37, jtuc...@objektfabrik.de wrote:
>
> Sorry guys, but today is my destructive day...
>
>
> I think most of the assert:whatever: methods are a waste of time and energy
> and just pollute SUnit with lots of methods that are named with misleading or
> at best debatable n
Sorry guys, but today is my destructive day...
I think most of the assert:whatever: methods are a waste of time and
energy and just pollute SUnit with lots of methods that are named with
misleading or at best debatable names.
Examples:
assert:equals: it's just more typing than #= with no a
Hi Peter,
Le 24 oct. 2015 à 20:36, Peter Uhnák a écrit :
> bump? :)
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Peter Uhnák wrote:
> How practical it is to do set-based comparison in
> TestAsserter>>assertCollection:hasSameElements: ?
>
> For example #(1 1 2) has same elements as #(1 2) which may m
