(2011/01/24 23:34), Jonathan M Davis 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.
- Jonathan M Davis
To be frank, I don't think that such a helper is necessary.
I think these helpers will harm intuitive readability of unittest code.
For unittest code, it is necessary to be able to understand easily even
if without the document.
