From noreply at rubyforge.org  Fri May  7 14:45:13 2010
From: noreply at rubyforge.org (noreply at rubyforge.org)
Date: Fri,  7 May 2010 14:45:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [test-unit-tracker] [ test-unit-Feature Requests-28181 ] Failure
	message for assert_in_delta not clear
Message-ID: <20100507184513.9EBBC1858300@rubyforge.org>

Feature Requests item #28181, was opened at 2010-05-07 18:45
You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28181&group_id=5650

Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Priority: 3
Submitted By: David MARCHALAND (marchaland)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: Failure message for assert_in_delta not clear

Initial Comment:
failure message OK:
--------------------
#Failure while checking 'logic' field.
# <1> expected but was
# <0>.

failure message not OK:
------------------------
# Failure while checking 'real' field.
# <32000.0> and
# <0.0> expected to be within
# <100> of each other.

Assert_in_delta function should have a failure message like :
# Failure while checking 'real' field.
# <32000.0> expected but was
# <0.0> (tolerance <100>).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28181&group_id=5650

From noreply at rubyforge.org  Sun May  9 00:45:06 2010
From: noreply at rubyforge.org (noreply at rubyforge.org)
Date: Sun,  9 May 2010 00:45:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [test-unit-tracker] [ test-unit-Feature Requests-28181 ] Failure
	message for assert_in_delta not clear
Message-ID: <20100509044506.DEE6A1858322@rubyforge.org>

Feature Requests item #28181, was opened at 2010-05-08 03:45
You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28181&group_id=5650

Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Priority: 3
Submitted By: David MARCHALAND (marchaland)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: Failure message for assert_in_delta not clear

Initial Comment:
failure message OK:
--------------------
#Failure while checking 'logic' field.
# <1> expected but was
# <0>.

failure message not OK:
------------------------
# Failure while checking 'real' field.
# <32000.0> and
# <0.0> expected to be within
# <100> of each other.

Assert_in_delta function should have a failure message like :
# Failure while checking 'real' field.
# <32000.0> expected but was
# <0.0> (tolerance <100>).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Kouhei Sutou (kou)
Date: 2010-05-09 13:45

Message:
What about this?

<<0.0>-<100>(-100.0) <= <32000.0> <= <0.0>+<100>(100.0)> expected but was
<<0.0>-<100>(-100.0) <= <0.0>+<100>(100.0) <= <32000.0>>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28181&group_id=5650

From noreply at rubyforge.org  Sun May  9 01:34:17 2010
From: noreply at rubyforge.org (noreply at rubyforge.org)
Date: Sun,  9 May 2010 01:34:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [test-unit-tracker] [ test-unit-Feature Requests-28006 ] Multiple
	startup
Message-ID: <20100509053417.10C081858324@rubyforge.org>

Feature Requests item #28006, was opened at 2010-03-26 06:25
You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28006&group_id=5650

Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Priority: 3
Submitted By: David MARCHALAND (marchaland)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: Multiple startup

Initial Comment:
Hi,

I would like to define multiple startups in the same testcase (similar approach compared to setup) :

def self.startup
  # Do some stuff
end

self.startup
def self.my_startup
  # Do some stuff
end

Is there already a way to do that ?

Thanks,
David

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Kouhei Sutou (kou)
Date: 2010-05-09 14:34

Message:
No. There is no way for that.

That is difficult because we can't use method_added hook for class method...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28006&group_id=5650

From noreply at rubyforge.org  Sun May  9 04:16:33 2010
From: noreply at rubyforge.org (noreply at rubyforge.org)
Date: Sun,  9 May 2010 04:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [test-unit-tracker] [ test-unit-Feature Requests-28181 ] Failure
	message for assert_in_delta not clear
Message-ID: <20100509081633.DD7F3185831F@rubyforge.org>

Feature Requests item #28181, was opened at 2010-05-07 18:45
You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28181&group_id=5650

Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Priority: 3
Submitted By: David MARCHALAND (marchaland)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: Failure message for assert_in_delta not clear

Initial Comment:
failure message OK:
--------------------
#Failure while checking 'logic' field.
# <1> expected but was
# <0>.

failure message not OK:
------------------------
# Failure while checking 'real' field.
# <32000.0> and
# <0.0> expected to be within
# <100> of each other.

Assert_in_delta function should have a failure message like :
# Failure while checking 'real' field.
# <32000.0> expected but was
# <0.0> (tolerance <100>).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: David MARCHALAND (marchaland)
Date: 2010-05-09 08:16

Message:
If I go further with your solution, it should only be :
<<32000.0>-<100>(31900.0) <= <0.0> <= <32000.0>+<100>(32100.0)>.

Your current implementation is more compact, hence simpler for debug. One 
missing thing is to explicit what are the "measured" value and the "expected" 
values. That was the gist of my proposal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Kouhei Sutou (kou)
Date: 2010-05-09 04:45

Message:
What about this?

<<0.0>-<100>(-100.0) <= <32000.0> <= <0.0>+<100>(100.0)> expected but was
<<0.0>-<100>(-100.0) <= <0.0>+<100>(100.0) <= <32000.0>>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28181&group_id=5650

From noreply at rubyforge.org  Sun May  9 04:22:18 2010
From: noreply at rubyforge.org (noreply at rubyforge.org)
Date: Sun,  9 May 2010 04:22:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [test-unit-tracker] [ test-unit-Feature Requests-28006 ] Multiple
	startup
Message-ID: <20100509082218.B5DA71858329@rubyforge.org>

Feature Requests item #28006, was opened at 2010-03-25 21:25
You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28006&group_id=5650

Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Priority: 3
Submitted By: David MARCHALAND (marchaland)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: Multiple startup

Initial Comment:
Hi,

I would like to define multiple startups in the same testcase (similar approach compared to setup) :

def self.startup
  # Do some stuff
end

self.startup
def self.my_startup
  # Do some stuff
end

Is there already a way to do that ?

Thanks,
David

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: David MARCHALAND (marchaland)
Date: 2010-05-09 08:22

Message:
Can we imagine a mechanism similar to "test_*" methods? All class methods 
starting with "startup_*" and current "startup" will be executed before any test. 
Same proposal for "shutdown".

For info, my issue is the following. I need to add a common startup for each 
testcase and someone else that defines testcases can also add a startup. Hence, 
I need to execute both startups. Any other idea to do that ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Kouhei Sutou (kou)
Date: 2010-05-09 05:34

Message:
No. There is no way for that.

That is difficult because we can't use method_added hook for class method...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28006&group_id=5650

From noreply at rubyforge.org  Sat May 15 22:12:54 2010
From: noreply at rubyforge.org (noreply at rubyforge.org)
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 22:12:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [test-unit-tracker] [ test-unit-Feature Requests-28006 ] Multiple
	startup
Message-ID: <20100516021254.37A391858319@rubyforge.org>

Feature Requests item #28006, was opened at 2010-03-26 06:25
You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28006&group_id=5650

Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Priority: 3
Submitted By: David MARCHALAND (marchaland)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: Multiple startup

Initial Comment:
Hi,

I would like to define multiple startups in the same testcase (similar approach compared to setup) :

def self.startup
  # Do some stuff
end

self.startup
def self.my_startup
  # Do some stuff
end

Is there already a way to do that ?

Thanks,
David

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Kouhei Sutou (kou)
Date: 2010-05-16 11:12

Message:
Uhm...
If we use "test_*" methods mechanism, we can't control "startup_*" methods order (or are difficult to provide intuitive API).

What about 'super'?

class A
  class << self
    def startup
      p [:startup, :A]
    end
  end
end

class B < A
  class << self
    def startup
      p [:startup, :B]
      super
    end
  end
end

A.startup
# => [:startup, :A]
B.startup
# => [:startup, :B]
# => [:startup, :A]


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: David MARCHALAND (marchaland)
Date: 2010-05-09 17:22

Message:
Can we imagine a mechanism similar to "test_*" methods? All class methods 
starting with "startup_*" and current "startup" will be executed before any test. 
Same proposal for "shutdown".

For info, my issue is the following. I need to add a common startup for each 
testcase and someone else that defines testcases can also add a startup. Hence, 
I need to execute both startups. Any other idea to do that ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Kouhei Sutou (kou)
Date: 2010-05-09 14:34

Message:
No. There is no way for that.

That is difficult because we can't use method_added hook for class method...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28006&group_id=5650

From noreply at rubyforge.org  Sat May 15 22:46:17 2010
From: noreply at rubyforge.org (noreply at rubyforge.org)
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 22:46:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [test-unit-tracker] [ test-unit-Feature Requests-28181 ] Failure
	message for assert_in_delta not clear
Message-ID: <20100516024617.C3F7D1858324@rubyforge.org>

Feature Requests item #28181, was opened at 2010-05-08 03:45
You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28181&group_id=5650

Category: None
Group: None
>Status: Closed
Priority: 3
Submitted By: David MARCHALAND (marchaland)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: Failure message for assert_in_delta not clear

Initial Comment:
failure message OK:
--------------------
#Failure while checking 'logic' field.
# <1> expected but was
# <0>.

failure message not OK:
------------------------
# Failure while checking 'real' field.
# <32000.0> and
# <0.0> expected to be within
# <100> of each other.

Assert_in_delta function should have a failure message like :
# Failure while checking 'real' field.
# <32000.0> expected but was
# <0.0> (tolerance <100>).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Kouhei Sutou (kou)
Date: 2010-05-16 11:46

Message:
OK. I've changed message. Thanks for your suggestion.

Assertion:
assert_in_delta(0.5, 0.4, 0.05, "message")

Message:
message.
<0.5> expected but was
<0.4> (tolerance <0.05>).

Relation:
<<0.4> < <0.5>-<0.05>(0.45) <= <0.5>+<0.05>(0.55)>


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: David MARCHALAND (marchaland)
Date: 2010-05-09 17:16

Message:
If I go further with your solution, it should only be :
<<32000.0>-<100>(31900.0) <= <0.0> <= <32000.0>+<100>(32100.0)>.

Your current implementation is more compact, hence simpler for debug. One 
missing thing is to explicit what are the "measured" value and the "expected" 
values. That was the gist of my proposal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Kouhei Sutou (kou)
Date: 2010-05-09 13:45

Message:
What about this?

<<0.0>-<100>(-100.0) <= <32000.0> <= <0.0>+<100>(100.0)> expected but was
<<0.0>-<100>(-100.0) <= <0.0>+<100>(100.0) <= <32000.0>>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=21859&aid=28181&group_id=5650