Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib
Thanks for sharing. Will check it out. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Steven Degutis sbdegu...@gmail.com wrote: - Renamed project to Nevermore - Moved repo to https://github.com/evanescence/nevermore - Test functions are required to return all assertions as a seq - Added around-each fixtures The way fixtures and test-suites work (and work together) makes me think of Datomic. -Steven On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Steven Degutis sbdegu...@gmail.comwrote: Also, I came up with a solution for simple around-each fixtures. It would use a declarative style just like (defn ^:test ...), but it would be (defn ^:around-each ...). And its metadata would contain a matcher-fn that matches against a test-fn's metadata. This way you could define a bunch of tests marked ^:db, and have an around-each fixture with :db as its matcher. The de-coupling means you don't need grouping or nesting to have multiple fixtures applied to multiple tests. It also means you can specify both tests and fixtures on a per-feature level. Unfortunately this solution does't carry over to around-all fixtures, because if several tests belong to multiple around-all fixtures, and not the same ones either, they would have to be run multiple times. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Steven Degutis sbdegu...@gmail.comwrote: The vast majority of my tests look like: do some setup, do some action, make a half-dozen assertions. Almost always in that order. The only reason I can think of that I would need to have assertions in the middle is if I plan to do more setup and action and assertions afterwards. And in that case, I'm really just writing a second test that should probably be its own test-fn. And if it relies on the setup from the first test, I should probably just extract it out into a function with common setup. I think I'm almost sold on this idea now. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:07 AM, John D. Hume duelin.mark...@gmail.com wrote: I've never tried it, but I like the idea of test fns returning their results. On Jul 24, 2013 8:30 AM, Steven Degutis sbdegu...@gmail.com wrote: Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning test results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of magic in the lib. ;; current style (side-effecty) (defn test-1 [] (let [foo (get-foo)] (expect empty? foo) (expect awesome? foo))) ;; proposed style (more functional) (defn test-1 [] (let [foo (get-foo)] [(expect empty? foo) (expect awesome? foo)])) -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Regards, Mayank. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib
It's been brought to my attention that this project is an utter waste of time, brings no real improvement over the existing solutions, and was wrought in complete arrogance. So I've deleted the project. Sorry for wasting a thread on this. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Steven Degutis sbdegu...@gmail.comwrote: Whoops. Looks like I didn't check the namespace well enough, there's already a lib called verily. (Sorry Justin.) Will think up a new name soon. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Steven Degutis sbdegu...@gmail.comwrote: https://github.com/evanescence/verily Verily is a new testing lib with a few goals: - Build off existing Clojure concepts (functions, vars, etc) - Be as functional/immutable as possible - Be easy to use from terminal or REPL - Have composable pieces that are easy to swap out - Keep running tests separate from reporting the results Some upcoming features: - Some convenience functions for assertions - Better reports -Steven -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib
Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013 08:14:15 UTC+2 schrieb Steven Degutis: It's been brought to my attention that this project is an utter waste of time, brings no real improvement over the existing solutions, and was wrought in complete arrogance. So I've deleted the project. Sorry for wasting a thread on this. Wat? Don't let yourself be pushed by self-proclaimed project guardians. If you saw any use of your library, then by-all-means you should continue it! Even if there are other libraries already, you'll maybe come up with the cool new feature. Who knows. The worst that can happen is that you learned yourself a lot about doing things. And that is always a win. From your message I get the impression that the act of bringing things to your attention was done in a rather non-diplomatic way. Feel free to make things public in such a case (maybe the case itself, not the names of the people involved). I don't think that this an appropriate behaviour for a community like clojure's. Especially since it is not done in public. It is absolutely arrogant to judge other people's projects in such a way. The other person has no right whatsoever to tell you which projects you should pursue and which not. Meikel -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib
I've never spoken to Steven in anything that wasn't a public email to this list, so it wasn't me. I'm not sure who the self-proclaimed project guardians are, but I just wanted to make sure no one thought I was trying to protect https://github.com/jaycfields/expectations in anyway. I don't actually think there's much value in unifying the infrastructure, but I agree with Meikel that no one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot work on. My *opinion* is that it's a waste of your (Steven's) time, but it costs me nothing for you (Steven) to try. If I'm wrong then we all benefit, which is obviously a good thing. I mean, we're all here because Rich wanted something better, right? That said, if all you want is the ability to run the different styles of tests side by side, start sending pull requests to align the internals of the 3. I can't imagine any of Brian, Micah, and I would have a problem with you tweaking internals that might allow more people to use our software. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) m...@kotka.dewrote: Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013 08:14:15 UTC+2 schrieb Steven Degutis: It's been brought to my attention that this project is an utter waste of time, brings no real improvement over the existing solutions, and was wrought in complete arrogance. So I've deleted the project. Sorry for wasting a thread on this. Wat? Don't let yourself be pushed by self-proclaimed project guardians. If you saw any use of your library, then by-all-means you should continue it! Even if there are other libraries already, you'll maybe come up with the cool new feature. Who knows. The worst that can happen is that you learned yourself a lot about doing things. And that is always a win. From your message I get the impression that the act of bringing things to your attention was done in a rather non-diplomatic way. Feel free to make things public in such a case (maybe the case itself, not the names of the people involved). I don't think that this an appropriate behaviour for a community like clojure's. Especially since it is not done in public. It is absolutely arrogant to judge other people's projects in such a way. The other person has no right whatsoever to tell you which projects you should pursue and which not. Meikel -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib
First, the goal of Verily was not the same as Test2. It wasn't intended to unify any existing test libs. It was really just meant to succeed clojure.test in spirit. That's all. Second, nobody bullied me into this decision. Some people asked how Verily improved upon the alternatives, and, try as I might, I couldn't come up with any good answer. That's how I realized that the project was pointless, a waste of time, and was wrought in arrogance. But, whether it really is useful to anyone else, that's not my decision to make. So I'm putting it back up and letting the community be the judge of that. https://github.com/evanescence/verily -- I'll still rename it though, soon. -Steven On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Jay Fields j...@jayfields.com wrote: I've never spoken to Steven in anything that wasn't a public email to this list, so it wasn't me. I'm not sure who the self-proclaimed project guardians are, but I just wanted to make sure no one thought I was trying to protect https://github.com/jaycfields/expectations in anyway. I don't actually think there's much value in unifying the infrastructure, but I agree with Meikel that no one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot work on. My *opinion* is that it's a waste of your (Steven's) time, but it costs me nothing for you (Steven) to try. If I'm wrong then we all benefit, which is obviously a good thing. I mean, we're all here because Rich wanted something better, right? That said, if all you want is the ability to run the different styles of tests side by side, start sending pull requests to align the internals of the 3. I can't imagine any of Brian, Micah, and I would have a problem with you tweaking internals that might allow more people to use our software. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) m...@kotka.dewrote: Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013 08:14:15 UTC+2 schrieb Steven Degutis: It's been brought to my attention that this project is an utter waste of time, brings no real improvement over the existing solutions, and was wrought in complete arrogance. So I've deleted the project. Sorry for wasting a thread on this. Wat? Don't let yourself be pushed by self-proclaimed project guardians. If you saw any use of your library, then by-all-means you should continue it! Even if there are other libraries already, you'll maybe come up with the cool new feature. Who knows. The worst that can happen is that you learned yourself a lot about doing things. And that is always a win. From your message I get the impression that the act of bringing things to your attention was done in a rather non-diplomatic way. Feel free to make things public in such a case (maybe the case itself, not the names of the people involved). I don't think that this an appropriate behaviour for a community like clojure's. Especially since it is not done in public. It is absolutely arrogant to judge other people's projects in such a way. The other person has no right whatsoever to tell you which projects you should pursue and which not. Meikel -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib
Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning test results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of magic in the lib. ;; current style (side-effecty) (defn test-1 [] (let [foo (get-foo)] (expect empty? foo) (expect awesome? foo))) ;; proposed style (more functional) (defn test-1 [] (let [foo (get-foo)] [(expect empty? foo) (expect awesome? foo)])) On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Steven Degutis sbdegu...@gmail.com wrote: First, the goal of Verily was not the same as Test2. It wasn't intended to unify any existing test libs. It was really just meant to succeed clojure.test in spirit. That's all. Second, nobody bullied me into this decision. Some people asked how Verily improved upon the alternatives, and, try as I might, I couldn't come up with any good answer. That's how I realized that the project was pointless, a waste of time, and was wrought in arrogance. But, whether it really is useful to anyone else, that's not my decision to make. So I'm putting it back up and letting the community be the judge of that. https://github.com/evanescence/verily -- I'll still rename it though, soon. -Steven On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Jay Fields j...@jayfields.com wrote: I've never spoken to Steven in anything that wasn't a public email to this list, so it wasn't me. I'm not sure who the self-proclaimed project guardians are, but I just wanted to make sure no one thought I was trying to protect https://github.com/jaycfields/expectations in anyway. I don't actually think there's much value in unifying the infrastructure, but I agree with Meikel that no one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot work on. My *opinion* is that it's a waste of your (Steven's) time, but it costs me nothing for you (Steven) to try. If I'm wrong then we all benefit, which is obviously a good thing. I mean, we're all here because Rich wanted something better, right? That said, if all you want is the ability to run the different styles of tests side by side, start sending pull requests to align the internals of the 3. I can't imagine any of Brian, Micah, and I would have a problem with you tweaking internals that might allow more people to use our software. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) m...@kotka.de wrote: Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013 08:14:15 UTC+2 schrieb Steven Degutis: It's been brought to my attention that this project is an utter waste of time, brings no real improvement over the existing solutions, and was wrought in complete arrogance. So I've deleted the project. Sorry for wasting a thread on this. Wat? Don't let yourself be pushed by self-proclaimed project guardians. If you saw any use of your library, then by-all-means you should continue it! Even if there are other libraries already, you'll maybe come up with the cool new feature. Who knows. The worst that can happen is that you learned yourself a lot about doing things. And that is always a win. From your message I get the impression that the act of bringing things to your attention was done in a rather non-diplomatic way. Feel free to make things public in such a case (maybe the case itself, not the names of the people involved). I don't think that this an appropriate behaviour for a community like clojure's. Especially since it is not done in public. It is absolutely arrogant to judge other people's projects in such a way. The other person has no right whatsoever to tell you which projects you should pursue and which not. Meikel -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit
Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib
I've never tried it, but I like the idea of test fns returning their results. On Jul 24, 2013 8:30 AM, Steven Degutis sbdegu...@gmail.com wrote: Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning test results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of magic in the lib. ;; current style (side-effecty) (defn test-1 [] (let [foo (get-foo)] (expect empty? foo) (expect awesome? foo))) ;; proposed style (more functional) (defn test-1 [] (let [foo (get-foo)] [(expect empty? foo) (expect awesome? foo)])) -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib
The vast majority of my tests look like: do some setup, do some action, make a half-dozen assertions. Almost always in that order. The only reason I can think of that I would need to have assertions in the middle is if I plan to do more setup and action and assertions afterwards. And in that case, I'm really just writing a second test that should probably be its own test-fn. And if it relies on the setup from the first test, I should probably just extract it out into a function with common setup. I think I'm almost sold on this idea now. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:07 AM, John D. Hume duelin.mark...@gmail.comwrote: I've never tried it, but I like the idea of test fns returning their results. On Jul 24, 2013 8:30 AM, Steven Degutis sbdegu...@gmail.com wrote: Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning test results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of magic in the lib. ;; current style (side-effecty) (defn test-1 [] (let [foo (get-foo)] (expect empty? foo) (expect awesome? foo))) ;; proposed style (more functional) (defn test-1 [] (let [foo (get-foo)] [(expect empty? foo) (expect awesome? foo)])) -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib
Also, I came up with a solution for simple around-each fixtures. It would use a declarative style just like (defn ^:test ...), but it would be (defn ^:around-each ...). And its metadata would contain a matcher-fn that matches against a test-fn's metadata. This way you could define a bunch of tests marked ^:db, and have an around-each fixture with :db as its matcher. The de-coupling means you don't need grouping or nesting to have multiple fixtures applied to multiple tests. It also means you can specify both tests and fixtures on a per-feature level. Unfortunately this solution does't carry over to around-all fixtures, because if several tests belong to multiple around-all fixtures, and not the same ones either, they would have to be run multiple times. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Steven Degutis sbdegu...@gmail.comwrote: The vast majority of my tests look like: do some setup, do some action, make a half-dozen assertions. Almost always in that order. The only reason I can think of that I would need to have assertions in the middle is if I plan to do more setup and action and assertions afterwards. And in that case, I'm really just writing a second test that should probably be its own test-fn. And if it relies on the setup from the first test, I should probably just extract it out into a function with common setup. I think I'm almost sold on this idea now. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:07 AM, John D. Hume duelin.mark...@gmail.comwrote: I've never tried it, but I like the idea of test fns returning their results. On Jul 24, 2013 8:30 AM, Steven Degutis sbdegu...@gmail.com wrote: Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning test results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of magic in the lib. ;; current style (side-effecty) (defn test-1 [] (let [foo (get-foo)] (expect empty? foo) (expect awesome? foo))) ;; proposed style (more functional) (defn test-1 [] (let [foo (get-foo)] [(expect empty? foo) (expect awesome? foo)])) -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib
https://github.com/evanescence/verily Verily is a new testing lib with a few goals: - Build off existing Clojure concepts (functions, vars, etc) - Be as functional/immutable as possible - Be easy to use from terminal or REPL - Have composable pieces that are easy to swap out - Keep running tests separate from reporting the results Some upcoming features: - Some convenience functions for assertions - Better reports -Steven -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib
Whoops. Looks like I didn't check the namespace well enough, there's already a lib called verily. (Sorry Justin.) Will think up a new name soon. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Steven Degutis sbdegu...@gmail.comwrote: https://github.com/evanescence/verily Verily is a new testing lib with a few goals: - Build off existing Clojure concepts (functions, vars, etc) - Be as functional/immutable as possible - Be easy to use from terminal or REPL - Have composable pieces that are easy to swap out - Keep running tests separate from reporting the results Some upcoming features: - Some convenience functions for assertions - Better reports -Steven -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Clojure group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
