From: Eric Mahurin <eric.mahurin@...>
Date: 2005-11-04T20:32:54+09:00
Subject: Re: <ANN> TeSLa, a Domain Specific Language for Unit Testing

------=_Part_29656_28864117.1131103972715
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 11/4/05, obscured by code <javierg1975@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you all for your responses, I though on posting here some of my
> opinions but it turned out to be too big so I decided I'd better blog
> about it. You can find the article here
>
> http://www.theniceweb.com/JaviersBlog/2005/11/ruby-20-and-tesla-upcoming-=
syntax_04.html
> Oh, would you guys please elaborate on "I'm not sure I trust the
> validity of the tests since they are applied in a way that they are not
> used." I don't really understand what you mean by that.
>
>
>
Sometimes, you can get different results by calling the method without a
receiver (what you do in this testing infrastructure) vs. with a receiver
(what you do when you use this class). I think the main problem revolves
around the use of #method_missing. If you declare a private method #foo and
also #method_missing, calling #foo without a receiver will give you the
private method #foo and calling #foo with a receiver will put you in
#method_missing. In general you are not testing with the protections that
you have from outside the class. There may be other suttle issues to be
concerned about. I don't think this invalidates your approach, but it shoul=
d
be a concern.

------=_Part_29656_28864117.1131103972715--