Extending unittests [proposal] [Proof Of Concept]

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-09-21 23:11, Jens Mueller wrote:

> But if you have an assert in some algorithm to ensure some invariant or
> in a contract it will be handled by myUnitTestSpecificAssertHandler.
> But I think that is not a drawback. Don't you want to no whenever an
> assert is violated?

Oh, you mean like that. Sure, but that will only show up as a failed 
test. For example, in the Ruby world there are two different testing 
frameworks: Rspec and test-unit. Rspec makes not difference between a 
thrown exception or a failed test (assert). Test-unit on the other hand 
do make a difference of these scenarios. I'm leaning more towards the 
Rspec way of handling this.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg