Am 08.02.2011 18:00, schrieb spir: > On 02/08/2011 04:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> 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 do agree failure cases must be tested (maybe even more) and are very often > neglected by programmers in unittests. But in a no-throw case the proper > assertion is just a regular assert (at least, in my use of unittests): > // dunno the syntax > assertThrown ( 1/0, DivisionByZero ); > assert ( 1/1 == 1 ); > If 1/1 throws DivisionByZero, I get all the information I need. Reason for my > question mark about including assertNotThrown. When do I need it? What new > does > it bring? > Sorry, I should have asked/commented earlier on this point (but had too > much...). > > Denis
Maybe it can be nested like assertThrown!Exception( assertNotThrown!MyException( fun(42) ) ); to ensure that fun() doesn't throw a MyException, but does throws another Exception? Cheers, - Daniel
