From: Jesse Jones <jesjones@...>
Date: 2001-12-20T00:07:10+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:28936] Re: Yet Another Unit Test Framework

In article <3C1F84D9.71C94118@stud.ntnu.no>, Kent Dahl
<kentda@stud.ntnu.no> wrote:

> 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".

Good point. I'll have to experiment with this a bit and see if I like
it better. Thanks for the comments!

  -- Jesse