On 2/8/11 10:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Enhancement request for assert: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5547
Thanks!
Okay. I'll look at doing another proposal which has the functionality of assertPred which doesn't make sense to add to assert, though I'll probably wait until the voting for assertNotThrown and collectExceptionMsg is done. I would point out, however, that it would be rather silly to include assertThrown and not assertNotThrown. Good unit tests should test _both_ that a function succeeds as it's supposed to _and_ that it fails as it's supposed to. So, I would hope that people vote in favor of assertNotThrown.
I think many people would emulate assertNotThrown by simply calling the function and... well if it throws then the unittest fails.
collectExceptionMsg isn't as critical, but it really does make it easy to test that exception messages are correct, since if you use collectException, you have to worry about checking for null before you can check the message. With collectExceptionMsg, it can be a an easy one-liner to check exception messages. Without it, you end up taking several lines, because you have to save and check the exception for null before you can check its message. I'll wait for the vote on assertNotThrown and collectExceptionMsg to be completed before putting assertThrown in Phobos. Then it can just all be taken care of at once.
Sounds great. Thanks! Andrei
