2014-05-02 10:16 GMT+02:00 Henrik Johansen <henrik.s.johansen@veloxit.no>:
On 01 May 2014, at 12:52 , Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I see many usage of #should: in SciSmalltalk tests that could simply be turned into #assert: or eventually #assert:equals: Why wanting to use a block? Other than #should:raise: and #shouldnt:raise:, I don't really see the point of #should: alone anyway... IMO should: should be deprecated, less is more. I'm possibly the author of several of these #should: sends, so don't take it personnally ;)
P.S. or is it easier to restart the block in the Debugger? I cross post to pharo-dev because it's a generic question, and there are a few #should: sends in Pharo-3.0 too.
Reading code with should:, I always imagined a trailing question mark...
self should: [IHaveIceCreamForLunch] ?
And even more so with should:raise:
self should [thisPieceOfCode] raise: SomeError ?
I dunno, you tell me!
The potentially constructive suggestion out of that, is that, at least to me, assert:raises: deny:raises: sound more natural than assert:raise: when read out loud.
I see, an affirmative form could be: [thisPieceOfCode] shouldRaise: SomeError but we need to insert the testimony of SUnit... assert:raises: is exactly that, and makes sense
Cheers, Henry