On 09.07.2013, at 23:28, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-07-09, at 21:23, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 July 2013 19:45, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
I continue my rant with should:raise:description:
a) self should: [ Error signal: 'error message' ] raise: Halt description: 'message'. b) self should: [ 1 + 2 ] raise: Halt description: 'message'.
In the first case you do not get the 'message' but 'error message'. In the second case you get the 'message'.
Does the description make sense in this case? 1. if you signal Halt everything is fine 2. Every other case is a failure 3. In case a) an internal failure happens so the test fails anyway, fine, but no description 4. A strange? case where the tests actually DO pass but we nevertheless want to print a description.
Can anybody give me a convincing case for 4?
Sorry, after this I will stop :D
In case (a) I would actually expect to see something like: "message. Unexpected Error raised: 'error message'".
In case (b) I'd want to see "message: no Halt raised"
I can't think of why you would want a description for a success case, so #4 just seems weird!
exactly! :) I agree on that ;). Now the question is on how to properly fix this for debugging. Since you actually want to debug on the unexpected Exception in case a)...
YESSSS!! That's about the thing I hate the most about SUnit: if a testrun fails because #should: fails, the signaler context is gone. That's SO ANNYOING!
I'll check my magic box..