Let's bikeshed std.experimental.testing assertions/checks/whatchamacallits

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On 2015-07-10 14:37, Atila Neves wrote:

> So... unconvinced again. I tried implementing it and it started getting
> to be a right royal pain, and then I realised that there's nothing to
> prevent a user from writing their own matchers right now. From your
> example:
>
>      void shouldBeParsedAs(Code code, ASTNode node) {  //I don't really
> know what the types should be
>          if(...) {
>              throw new UnitTestException(...);
>          }
>      }
>
> And... done. No need for a `Should` struct, no need for the
> complications I faced trying to use one. I think the design is as good
> as it can be.

If I compare this with RSpec. A custom matcher in RSpec would implement 
one method, returning a bool, to indicate if the assertion passed or 
not. In your example the user need to worry about throwing exceptions 
and which kind to throw. I consider that an implementation detail.

Also, RSpec is able to automatically infer a failure message based on 
the name of the matcher. Optionally the matcher can customize the 
failing message.

It seems like with your version you need to implement both a positive 
and negative version.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg