Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="ara.t.howard, post: 4635352"] On Mar 30, 2009, at 2:12 AM, Brian Candler wrote: ( a LOT of good stuff to which i'll reply to selectively here) hmmm. yeah i see that, but disagree that the effort isn't worth it for the *next* programer. yeah i agree. i'm open to suggestion, just has to be very very simple. bingo! i really think the key is having *one* assertion method. i dunno - ruby is pretty good at this value = begin; object.call; rescue => e; e.class; end result.check :error, SomeError, value that seems perfectly fine to me. gives me an idea though - maybe check should take a block result.check(:error, SomeError){ something that raises an error } and use the block to get the actual value as in value = begin; block.call; rescue Object => e; e; end check actually uses === for the comparison so you can do result.check :instance_of, SomeClass, object result.check :matches, /pattern/, string i need to nail that down though. i actually thought of simply patching test/unit... but then there are good test names, contexts, etc. well - here actual always === expected with my current impl. it's essentially example code wrapped in assert_nothing_raised ;-) funny you mention that as i also hate that. my first version of testy actually just failed fast - if one test failed the code reported and aborted. maybe i should consider going back to that? i am finding that good output makes a ton of failures much easer - even using less and searching is easier with testy that anything else. shoulda does work well - i stole it's context concept just yesterday ;-) i used to be on the ramaze list alot too you know ;-) a @ [URL]http://codeforpeople.com/[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification