From: Kent Dahl <kentda@...>
Date: 2001-12-19T23:47:00+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:28920] Re: Yet Another Unit Test Framework

Jesse Jones wrote:
> Most tests are fundamentally pretty simple: you create one or more
> objects, call some methods, and verify that the object state is what
> you expected. There's no need to create a whole new class to do this, a
> class method is more than adequate.

But the class method has a much larger definition signature in Ruby,
which I don't like. Thou tests are simple, I do use classes to structure
them. I found it very "wierd" to have them in a class called UnitTest as
class methods.

You also end up writing this kind of "scope" into the test method name:
	test_String_substr
This makes my backhead scream for a TestString class.

If I write ten tests for additional String methods, I think I both save
character-strokes and increase readability if I do "class TestString <
RUnit::TestCase" reducing the method definition from "def
UnitTest.test_String_substr" to "def test_substr".


> I don't understand this one. I am using reflection to find the unit
> test methods. That's how UnitTest::doTest figures out which methods to
> call.

Sorry, that was a brain-fart on my part. 
The name arugment to UnitTest::doRunTest had me confused.
I only glanced very quickly :-)

-- 
<[ Kent Dahl ]>================<[ http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~kentda/ ]>
  )____(stud.techn.;ind.�k.data)||(softwareDeveloper.at(Trustix))_( 
 /"Opinions expressed are mine and not those of my Employer,      "\
( "the University, my girlfriend, stray cats, banana fruitflies,  " )
 \"nor the frontal lobe of my left cerebral hemisphere.           "/