FYI, I've just released Wrong 0.6.0 with eventually "as is" -- i.e. no
extra exception message fiddling.
I also added a message param to Wrong's "d" method, e.g.
d("math is hard") { 2 + 2 }
prints
math is hard: (2 + 2) is 4
to the console. Useful for debugging (which is what "d" stands
On 28 Sep 2011, at 01:09, Alex Chaffee wrote:
> After a week of stealing minutes, I eventually wrote eventually!
> Please check this out and give me feedback. I can ship it in a new
> Wrong gem as soon as you all tell me it's ready.
>
> docs:
> https://github.com/alexch/wrong/commit/cae852f09a3d
After a week of stealing minutes, I eventually wrote eventually!
Please check this out and give me feedback. I can ship it in a new
Wrong gem as soon as you all tell me it's ready.
docs:
https://github.com/alexch/wrong/commit/cae852f09a3d4dcb3f014b486a10d5eb7a10e7f5
test (spec):
https://github.co
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Matt Wynne wrote:
> I want a helpful error message when the test fails, rather than a crude
> TimeoutError or whatever.
I hear you.
> I'm ambivalent about this: I would worry that allowing falsiness to cause an
> assertion to be raised is not idiomatic RSpec, b
On 21 Sep 2011, at 17:46, Alex Chaffee wrote:
> There's a semantic issue in your eventually method that I'd like to
> discuss. My wait_for[1] and friends take a *predicate* (in the form of
> a block) and wait for it to return true(ish). Your eventually[2]
> ignores the return condition, and merel
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
> I've never used Wrong, only read about it--and I like the idea very much, I
> must say. Is there any danger of adverse effects (other than an extra line
> the Gemfile) if we have to use the Wrong RSpec adapter in the book alongside
> the exis
On 20 Sep 2011, at 23:38, Alex Chaffee wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>> Thanks for all the ideas. I just rolled my own which expects a block with an
>> assertion in it:
>
> I love the language!
>
>eventually { white.should be_black }
>
>> Could we put this in
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
> Thanks for all the ideas. I just rolled my own which expects a block with an
> assertion in it:
I love the language!
eventually { white.should be_black }
> Could we put this into RSpec somewhere?
It's not actually RSpec-specific. I'll pu
Thanks for all the ideas. I just rolled my own which expects a block with an
assertion in it:
https://gist.github.com/1228927
Could we put this into RSpec somewhere? I'd rather not dump the source into The
Cucumber Book - it's too low level. I could put it into it's own little gem but
that see
Sure. "wait_for" is a method Brian Takita and I originally wrote for
use in Selenium tests, then IIRC it made it into the Selenium gem and
now lots of libraries use it (or their own version -- I make no patent
claim on polling :-)). The wait_for I remember allowed you to
customize the failure messa
> the_object.should eventually_call(:foo).within(2).seconds
TDDing multithreaded apps. Good times.
Best,
Sidu.
http://blog.sidu.in
On 13 September 2011 20:08, Justin Ko wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> In GOOS[1] they use an assertion called asser
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In GOOS[1] they use an assertion called assertEventually which samples the
> system for a success state until a certain timeout has elapsed. This allows
> you to synchronise the tests with asynchronous code.
>
> Do we have an equiva
12 matches
Mail list logo
