On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:34:49 +0900, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>
wrote:
In case you didn't know, I have a set of unit test helper functions
which have
been being reviewed for possible inclusion in phobos. Here's an update.
Most recent code: http://is.gd/F1OHat
Okay. I took the previous suggestions into consideration and adjusted
the code a
bit more. However, most of the changes are to the documentation (though
there
are some changes to the code). Some of the code duplication was removed,
and the
way that some of the assertPred functions' errors are formatted has been
altered
so that values line up vertically, making them easier to compare. The
big change
is the docs though. There's now a fake version of assertPred at the top
with an
overall description for assertPred followed by the individual versions
with as
little documentation as seemed appropriate while still getting all of the
necessary information across. A couple of the functions still have
irritatingly
long example sections, but anything less wouldn't get the functionality
across.
In any case. Here's the updated code. Review away. Andrei set the vote
deadline
for February 7th, at which point, if it passes majority vote, then it
will go
into Phobos. The number of functions is small enough now (thanks to
having
consolidated most of them into the fantastically versatile assertPred)
that it
looks like it will likely go in std.exception if the vote passes rather
than
becoming a new module. So, the std.unittests title has now become a bit
of a
misnomer, but that's what I've been calling it, so it seemed appropriate
to
continue to label it that way in the thread's title.
I vote Andrei's suggestion, std.exception is better than new std.unittests.
I think testing module should provide more features(e.g. Mock, Stub...).
Your helpers help assert writing style but not help testing.
In addition, std.exception already defined similar functions.
Masahiro
