On 18 nov. 2013, at 13:07, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't like having the Unit Tests so coupled with the code. > > Many times I implement Unit Tests that doesn't match 1:1 with a class. > It is... the TestCase subclass doesn't have a corresponding class (eg. > SomeFeatureTest, with no SomeFeature class in the system). IMO, you're talking about functional tests, not unit tests. While a unit test is done in isolation and is concerned with one "unit" (typically a method), an acceptance test tests a feature of your application that will typically crosscut many units. In Pyret, they have another clause "check" for that purpose. > Regards, > > Esteban A. Maringolo > > > 2013/11/18 Camille Teruel <camille.ter...@gmail.com>: >> >> On 17 nov. 2013, at 15:16, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: >> >> I stumbled across this idea when Markus Gaelli chose it as a PhD topic about >> ten years ago (man, I'm old). The main idea was not to provide tests, but >> examples that happened to have assertions. The goal was twofold: (1) provide >> live documentation with real objects, (2) provide another way of composing >> tests. >> >> The project did not really come to fruition, but I still think this is >> highly interesting topic. Part of the ideas were later implemented in >> Phexample (http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Phexample/Phexample/) and >> JExample (http://scg.unibe.ch/research/jexample). >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> There was a presentation of the Pyret language at SCRIPT workshop last week. >> This way of coupling unit tests with functions is indeed interesting. >> One the one hand I feel it's like a mixing of concerns, on the other hand >> it's push unit-tests into the language. >> The funny part is that the examples provided are used to type the function: >> >> fun id(x): >> x >> where: >> id(3) is 3 >> id("bla") is "bla" >> end >> >> is typed as 'a -> 'a whereas: >> >> fun id(x): >> x >> where: >> id(3) is 3 >> end >> >> is typed as int -> int >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Andy Burnett >> <andy.burn...@knowinnovation.com> wrote: >>> >>> I have just come across the Pyret language. It looks interesting, but the >>> part which particularly caught my interest was the way that they had built >>> the unit tests directly into the classes, rather than having separate test >>> classes. >>> >>> I think this is an interesting idea. It seems as though it would be easier >>> to manage writing tests if everything were in one location. And this - might >>> - mean that people were more likely to write tests. >>> >>> Has anyone else looked at this, and have an opinion on whether it would be >>> a good addition to Pharo 4/5/X? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Andy >> >> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" >> >> >
