On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Adrian Kuhn
<akuhn@iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@...> writes:
> So, what I would do is to "fix" it but (I don't know) put is as deprecated so
> that all the tests of the people are still green and give them time to change
> it to expectedErrors or similar. After a second release you can remove this
> fix :) What do you think?
Yes, that is how I planned it ... and then you came with your dynamically
�generated expectations. Which the new system does not support.
It's an awesome idea, so I am thinking about a way to support dynamic
�expectations in the new system. I have one solution in mind: given your
�#expectedFailures, would the following work for you?
� �testBlob
� � � �self assume: SqueakDatabaseAccessor DefaultDriver ~~ SqueakDBXDriver.
� � � �...
which runs the test if and only if the default driver is not SqueakDBXDriver.
�This would have the same effect as your #expectedFailures implementation,
�where you expected an error for that case. Like this your expectation is put
�closer to the code.
Yes, this will work and will give me a benefit and a drawback :)
Benefit: I can declare a expected failure only for a single test and not for all the tests of the class. Right now, I have situations like this and I a doing exactly that (more ugly actually), an if to see something and then a ^ self is it shouldn't be run.
Drawback: Most of the times (in my case) the condition (SqueakDatabaseAccessor DefaultDriver ~~ SqueakDBXDrive) is always the same, so that's why it was easier as I did it. Here I should declare it in every test. However, this is VERYYYYYY little detail that I really don't care (I am not eve sure if this solution is better). I am bothering too much hahaha.
Of course,� I don't know what other people think about this but in my point of view, this is ok :)
Cheers
Mariano
�