Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Yes, let me clarify what I mean by DSL. Let's say I in my code somewhere
say:
(println (just 42))
What is printed in my repl is an instance of the JustChecker type. Calling
(just ...) doesn't do anything on its own, it constructs am Abstract Syntax
Tree (AST) of sorts that represents how a checker should check something in
the future. If we crack open the code inside JustChecker we see a method
call (diff-similar ...) that's the "eval" function of your DSL, or mini
language.
And therein likes the problem with DSLs they often have "non" clojure
semantics that are only valid inside a given context (a test runner for
example). So it becomes very hard to know where I'm allowed to use Clojure
constructs (map, filter, doseq, etc.) and where I'm in a DSL land where
only certain forms are supported. DSLs have their place, I'm just
unconvinced that a test suite is one of them.
Timothy
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM, dimitris <jimpil1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi again Timothy,
>
> I just got what you meant! by DSL you mean the 'free-floating' checkers
> right? You mean that you'd prefer to see the checkers as `assert-expr`
> extensions so they are recognizable by `is` yes? I'm not entirely opposed
> to that but that would mean one `is` per assertion, which sounds
> cumbersome. I will contemplate this idea of an alternate api where `is`
> recognises individual checker symbols and if the idea matures i might
> include it as a separate namepace in fudje...Thanks again! :)
>
> Regards,
> dimitris
>
> On 27/01/16 23:40, dimitris wrote:
>
> Hi Timothy,
>
> Many thanks for taking the time to look into fudje...It is nowhere near as
> mature as midje but I find it pretty neat and a pleasure to work with so
> far (apart from the 'multimock' workaround perhaps). Also, many thanks for
> your feedback...It seems you have misunderstood the purpose of sweet.clj
> though...The sole purpose of that file is to help you auto-migrate your
> existing midje code to fudje (which is much closer to clojure.test). If you
> don't have any existing midje tests, then there is no reason to ever look
> at fudje/sweet.clj. You need to `require` it if you want to use the
> checker-stuff, but other than that, noone forces you to use `fact` or
> `tabular`, and in fact it would be weird if one did. These are purely there
> to support automatic rewrite. It has worked for us nicely where i
> work...For the most part changing the ns declaration is enough to
> 'un-midje' an entire namespace (some limitations exist of course). I hope
> that is clearer now...fudje introduces no new syntax, other than the `=>`
> which IMO nicely/visually separates the mock-outs from the mock-ins (i
> think that was a good decision made by midje in the first place and kept
> it).
>
> Now, your other point, i actually understand, and believe it or not, i
> agree! for example at work we've talked this through and we're only opting
> in for this stuff when it's actually adding value - not for every single
> test case. I'll admit that example is a bit contrived and not very
> welcoming, but i was sort of trying to cram as much stuff as possible in
> the tests (where the demos are from). Actual usage of fudje almost never
> looks like that cryptic, and if it does it mostly has to do with checker
> abuse rather than new syntax. Your little snippet actually tests less stuff
> with more code, and of course, no mocks, but I do get the point that 'more
> code' isn't actually a problem when the code is clearer. :) I'm with you on
> this one
>
> I guess at the end of the day if i want to support arbitrarily nesting
> checkers, there will always be a possibility for some very ugly code. apart
> from the `=>` symbol, which BTW can be anything you like as it's never
> evaluated, I don't see where you get the DSL impression from. fudje was
> specifically designed top to bottom to be as less sugary as possible (even
> though fudge is very very sugary!). :)
>
> Kind regards,
> dimitris
>
>
>
> On 27/01/16 20:46, Timothy Baldridge wrote:
>
> So a bit of constructive feedback on Fudje, firstly, I like that it's
> pretty simple, I can take bits I want and leave bits I don't, so good work
> on that.
>
> But I do have a issue with the sweet.clj syntax, and I think it's best
> exemplified by the code found in the intro:
>
> (testing "arg-checker in mocking vector"
> (mocking [(f (just {:a (contains [2 3])
> :b (has every? keyword?)})) => :some-number]
> (is (= :some-number (f {:a [1 2 3 4] :b #{:x :y :z}})))))
>
> This is a good example of a DSL, and it falls under the criticisms I level
> at most DSLs, mainly they aren't Clojure. If we dive into sweet.clj and the
> surrounding namespaces we see a good example of a parser (from clojure to a
> AST) and a execution engine (via the protocols). You wrote a programming
> language, congrats!
>
> But with that DSL comes some baggage, it's no longer Clojure. Now my code
> is written in one language and my tests in another. I must now go and read
> the Fudje docs to understand the syntax and the evaluation order/semantics.
> I know these are mostly taken from Midje, but that's one of my criticisms
> about that library as well.
>
> Instead, I would prefer to just use something like the following
>
> (testing "arguments are sane"
> (is (contains (:a input) [2 3]))
> (is (every? keyword? (:b input))))
>
> Now any Clojure programmer that comes after me can easily understand
> what's going on, since everything is written in the same language. There's
> still room for more advanced testing predicates, and even the mocking macro
> may have its place. But I'd recommend dropping the DSL.
>
> Timothy
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:47 PM, dimitris <jimpil1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> Thanks for your kind words and, of course, for midje...I've been using it
>> for years!
>>
>> About the AOT issues, i was mainly referring to this:
>> https://github.com/marick/Midje/issues/274
>>
>> In addition, where i work we have to package our 'harness-testing' module
>> separately and not AOT it. That has generally worked nicely, and taking a
>> step back it seems like good practice to package all your testing
>> infrastructure separately, but the fact that we can't is unfortunate
>> nonetheless. Has something changed in terms of this issue that I'm not
>> aware of? If yes, please forgive me for 'misleading'- i will fix asap!
>>
>> Thanks again...
>> Cheers,
>> dimitris
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26/01/16 23:42, Brian Marick wrote:
>>
>>> dimitris wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a small testing library inspired by midje.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, I (author of Midje) think this is wonderful.
>>>
>>> You might consider emphasizing that you have similar checkers, as I
>>> think that's one of Midje's strong points. I've been recently incorporating
>>> <https://github.com/marick/structural-typing/>
>>> https://github.com/marick/structural-typing/ to get better error
>>> messages when checking collections. Like this:
>>>
>>> The checker said this about the reason:
>>>> [0 :a :b] should be `even?`; it is `1`
>>>> [1 :c] must exist and be non-nil
>>>> [2 :a :b] should be `neg?`; it is `2`
>>>>
>>>
>>> Otherwise:
>>>
>>> 1) The implementation is utterly intimidating (i' ve heard this from
>>>> plenty other people)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah. It started as my project to learn Clojure, so it's not... um...
>>> the way I write code today.
>>>
>>> 2) Doesn't play nicely with AOT
>>>>
>>>
>>> At two companies, I've used Midje and deployed AOT-compiled uberjars. It
>>> would be interesting to have a specific example of the problem.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to <clojure@googlegroups.com>
>> clojure@googlegroups.com
>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
>> your first post.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
>> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to <clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that–lacking
> zero–they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C
> programs.”
> (Robert Firth)
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
“One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that–lacking
zero–they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C
programs.”
(Robert Firth)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
