[ruby-talk:13074] Re: [ANN] Lapidary 0.2.0

[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] wrote:

> >>>>> "Nathaniel" == Nathaniel Talbott
> <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>     Nathaniel> I'm looking forward to getting everyone's questions,
>     Nathaniel> comments and snide remarks :-)
>
> No snide remarks here!  Just a few comments.  In looking over the
> docs, I do notice that many of the assert methods mirror runit's
> except for minor spelling/capitalization differences (assertEqual vs
> assert_equal).  Having consistency between Lapidary and runit would
> facilitate moving test cases between the two.  (Perhaps a set of runit
> aliases would be sufficient).

Actually, assert_equal() will work fine. Any method in Assertions can be
called separated either with camelCase or under_score. If you're really
worried about efficiency, calling camelCase methods is slightly faster, but
other than that, they're exactly the same (I've overriden
Assertions#method_missing() to automatically convert from camelCase to
under_score).


>     (As an aside to the general Ruby public, is there a semi-official
>     pererence for a Ruby capitalization scheme on method names.  I've
>     seen camelCase and under_score both used.  I really don't care
>     which way is used, but my foolish sense of consistency is twigged
>     when I have to mix them.  Ok, back to Lapidary comments)
>
> Also, I've found that providing the negative version of some the
> assertions is also helpful, e.g. assertNoMatch, assertNotNil,
> assertNoRaises.  (The "assertNoRaises" is ackward, perhaps
> assertException and assertNoException would be a better pair.)

Hmmm... I've also found them useful at various times. I'll think about
these.


Nathaniel

<:((><
+ - -						+ - -
| RoleModel Software, Inc. &		| EQUIP VI
| The XP Software Studio(TM)		|