[squeak-dev] The Inbox: SUnit-cmm.116.mcz
asqueaker at gmail.com
Mon May 27 19:06:44 UTC 2019
This change simply fixes the display for exclusion (or inclusion)
of "expectedFailures" in the list, and nothing more. It does *not*
change granularity of assert: at all.
The way tests are written is unchanged, and still up to the test
developer. If you don't use #expectedFailures, you can ignore this
completely. That's the only use-case being fixed here.
> yes, tests should be as modular and concise as possible -- only checking for "one thing" in each test. However, #assert: is *not* the level of granularity one should look at to judge a certain test's modularity. That is, there can be more than one #assert: in a test and still the test be regarded as testing "one thing".
> So... I do not quite agree with your statement here ... but I think you mean the right thing:
> > Expected failures should be put into their own #test.. method
> > and not mixed with assertions that are expected to pass. Otherwise,
> > the SUnit domain won't be able to properly express to you the state of
> > those tests, as you said.
> One should not compose tests according to pass-or-not but rather following domain/project-specific reasons.
Agree, and they still are composed for domain-specific reasons. But
expectedFailures are a subset *within* a domain-specific reason that
not only *should* (IMO), but *need* to be separated out, because SUnit
provides registration of expectedFailures ONLY at the #test... method
So nothing is changed w.r.t. this issue you raise about mixing
expectedFailures with expectedPasses. Doing so today would result in
the same ambiguity within the single test, with or without this
change. Like, what would you think if you came upon this?
self assert: (falseExpression).
self assert: (trueExpression)
The test is registered as an expectedFailure, so regardless of whether
you classify that TestResult as "1 unexpected passes", "1 expected
failure", either way, you have hidden information from yourself about
the OTHER test in that method. This change has nothing to do with
> Then, I know about some tests that put a guard in the beginning of a test to provide a useful "failure message" to the user before running into some other assertion failures.
expectedFailures is a feature of SUnit designed to handle use cases
like the one I described.
> Still not so sure about this hook, though, ... hmmm...
It's not a "hook" as much as a correction to whether a particular
failed assertion should be expected or not.
More information about the Squeak-dev