From: patrick-may@... (Patrick May)
Date: 2002-06-08T17:17:25+09:00
Subject: Re: [RDoc etc] automatic documentation: using tests in addition to / instead of comments

Massimiliano Mirra <list@chromatic-harp.com> wrote in message news:<20020607211650.GA6102@prism.localnet>...
> See comments by Nat Price in [ruby-talk:22920] about meaningful test
> names.  Basically a test should be named in such a way that, when the
> runner reports it as failing, one can get an idea of what is failing
> by just peeking at the name, e.g. not just a single test_divide but
> test_divide_raises_if_by_zero,
> test_divide_returns_correct_result_with_nonzero, etc.

I noticed that in my practice, test_method would often contain the
best example code, while the edge cases would be in
test_method_does_something.

> Of course nobody aims guns if done otherwise :-), but through time
> I've found that practice to really help.

With an explicit directive, you could still pull these other bits in
as examples.  I noticed this naming pattern among the tests that made
the best examples.

I guess the question would be "does anyone else have this pattern?"

~ Patrick

P.S. I had problems looking up [ruby-talk:22920]

http://www.ruby-talk.com/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/22920

seems to point to [ruby-talk:23457] ?