On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 14:58:45 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 12:42:40 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe
wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 08:06:37 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
[...]
These days I am leaning towards BDD, but everybody has his
favorite. Maybe just providing the low-level details in
std.testing would enough; e.g. a test runner, UDA's and
assertions.
Yeah, I'm starting to think it might be better to delete
`should.d` from my current PR, try to get the rest approved
then work on where the community wants the fancy assertions to
go. It's a shame though because I think it's a massively
important piece of the whole thing. It's a night and day
difference when a test fails.
Atila
Makes sense. You could still keep the should's, just rename the
whole lot to isEmpty / isNotEmpty / isGreaterThan and have it
return a bool instead of calling fail internally. Then you would
simply expect the callee to do that. As in:
`assert(5.isEqual(6));`.
