[Pharo-users] TestAsserter>>assertCollection:hasSameElements:

jtuchel at objektfabrik.de jtuchel at objektfabrik.de
Fri Oct 30 06:55:24 EDT 2015

> Adding the feedback generation into makes the API even more 
> complicated, because you'd have to ar least pass a String as a fourth 
> parameter.
> So we'd end up with:
> assertExecuting: aBlock with: listOfArguments resultsIn: 
> expectedResult otherwise: failureString.

... and if you - like me - wonder if this would be any better than the 
current #assert:description: and some additional bindWith:'s for 
reusable nicer error texts, we may finally agree that we can as well 
leave SUnit as it is ... and bite the bullet of writing a bit more code 
for better feedback.
> In this form, I am sure nobody would use it. Or just for very special 
> and important tests. So all that I can come up with for now is 
> insufficient, unfortunately. Sure, there can be variants that provide 
> some standard parameters for most of the arguments, but the base 
> problem remains that the API is clumsy.
So my whole point boils down to: please don't add too much cruft to 
SUnit just to get better feedback.


More information about the Pharo-users mailing list