[rspec-users] simple == with prettier error messages + good documentation

aslak hellesoy aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com
Thu Jan 29 14:02:52 EST 2009


On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:25 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM, <r_j_h_box-sf at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've found myself writing a thing I think is less than optimal, looking
>> for suggestions.  The context is, I'm testing a result, and as a part of
>> that test, I might verify two or three things, which are individually
>> relevant but not really discrete results (?).
>>
>> Here's my thinking process, using a toy example:
>>
>>   foo.should == bar (or foo.should_not be_nil)
>>
>> > expected not to be nil, but was
>>
>> (hm, not very informative)
>>
>>   if( foo == nil )
>>     "failure to setup foo".should == "foo should be set to the thing that
>> will be rendered"
>>   end
>>
>> > expected "foo should be set to the thing that will be rendered",
>> > got "failure to setup foo" (using ==)
>>
>> I've used this, by example, for a test on a dependency (imagemagick),
>> where if the dependency isn't found, I show a decent message with info the
>> tester can use to resolve it.  And, as I mentioned, I've used it for
>> revealing more details in cases where the it "" + the generic error aren't
>> informative.
>>
>> I'm satisfied using this method for things like detecting a failure to use
>> a test-helper correctly - works fine, doesn't get in my way as part of the
>> documentation.  Which brings me to the problem I'm concerned about:
>>
>> With this method, nothing come out in the generated spec-docs to represent
>> the thing I'm conditionally requiring.
>>
>> I guess I could get more fine-grained with my it()'s, but I've been
>> preferring a more general statement for it(), that gives the sense without
>> the detail.
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> I can't think of anything that wouldn't result in something that requires
> more writing as of now. Maybe we need a new construct like:
> it "does something" do
>   with_message "this is a more specific message" do
>     foo.should == bar
>   end
> end
> WDYT?
>

I think that would be useful. Maybe make it more explicit that it's an
error message:

on_error "bla" do
  ...
end

>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>



-- 
Aslak (::)


More information about the rspec-users mailing list