First, automated test running was common practice in software engineering. We were doing it with shell scripts at my company back in 1985. And of course this is precisely what âexpectâ was written for, and itâs why tools like tcov/xcov exist for conventionallanguages like C. SUnit just made it *easy* . Second, why would anyone *expect* a one to one correspondence between method names and test method names? Where is it written that a test case tests or indeed can test only one method? Take a trivial example like testThatAddAdds |x m| x := testClass withAll: #(1 2 3 5). m := x size. x add: 4. self assert: x size equals: m+1. (Typed on a tablet, so pretty rough. Sorry.) Does this test #add: or #size? Iâve known tests like thisto find faults in #withAll: and in one memorable case #+ . If you want to document a link to what youâre testing, use a pragma. <test: #consistency of: #add: with: #size> and set up your UI to realize that this is a test of BOTH #add: and #size so that it should be rerun if either of them changes. On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 at 2:58â¯AM, Koen De Hondt < koen@all-objects-all-the-time.st> wrote:
Dear Pharo users and developers,
I wrote a blog post in which I evaluate SUnit <https://all-objects-all-the-time.st/#/blog/posts/10>.
Enjoy reading it!
Ciao, Koen