From: jweirich@...
Date: 2001-03-25T14:43:34+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:13191] Re: Request for additional Lapidary assert methods

>>>>> "Duff" == Duff O'Melia <duff@omelia.org> writes:

    Duff> The following assert methods have been very helpful to me in
    Duff> the past when using JUnit. [...]  I think the following
    Duff> should be added to the framework:

    Duff> # To do instance checks:
    Duff> assertSame(expected, actual)
    Duff> assertNotSame(expected, actual)

What's the difference between Same and Equal?

    Duff> # One negation jweirich brought up and one other:
    Duff> assertNotEqual(expected, actual)
    Duff> assertNotNil(object)

Yes.

    Duff> I'm unsure about the following being added:

    Duff> - I can't remember ever testing code to *not* throw an
    Duff> exception.  Has anyone actually needed this?  Therefore, I
    Duff> don't think the following method should be added to the
    Duff> framework.
    Duff> assertDoesNotRaise()

I've done it, although not often.  I was checking that a framework
supported X, but threw an exception on Y.  In retrospect, I could have
used any old assertion to check for X support, in which case the test
would have had an error (rather than failing the assertion ... a
subtle difference).

    Duff> - I haven't used regular expressions much (yet) so I'm not
    Duff> sure whether I'd use:
    Duff> assertDoesNotMatch(regularExpression, string)

I've used this when testing regular expressions, e.g. asserting that
the RE matches these strings and does not match these other strings.

-- 
-- Jim Weirich     jweirich@one.net    http://w3.one.net/~jweirich
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, 
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)