Test::Unit could use a built-in antonym of assert, that succeeds if
its argument is either false or nil.
martin
Martin DeMello wrote:
Test::Unit could use a built-in antonym of assert, that succeeds if
its argument is either false or nil.
Hmm, I would have thought "assert not ..." would work, but there is
something odd in the parsing of 'not' as an argument:
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.7 (2010-01-10 patchlevel 249) [x86_64-linux]
$ irb --simple-prompt
not 1
=> false
not 3 < 4
=> false
puts(3 < 4)
true
=> nil
puts(not 3 < 4)
SyntaxError: compile error
(irb):4: syntax error, unexpected kNOT, expecting ')'
puts(not 3 < 4)
^
(irb):4: syntax error, unexpected ')', expecting $end
from (irb):4
puts((not 3 < 4))
false
In the past I've just done assert !(...)
But I think the issue is moot, because writing custom asserts is a
perfectly standard thing to do. That is, just write
def assert_not(bool, *rest)
assert(!bool, *rest)
end
···
from :0
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Test::Unit could use a built-in antonym of assert, that succeeds if
its argument is either false or nil.
this is why minitest has refute, which means it is available in ruby 1.9:
···
On Sep 1, 2010, at 01:19 , Martin DeMello wrote:
./ruby19 -Ilib -rtest/unit -e 'class X < Test::Unit::TestCase; def test_x; refute true; end;end'
Test run options: --seed 53548Loaded suite -e
Started
F
Finished in 0.000635 seconds.1) Failure:
test_x(X) [-e:1]:
Failed refutation, no message given1 tests, 1 assertions, 1 failures, 0 errors, 0 skips
Test run options: --seed 53548
test-unit 2.x has assert_false and assert_nil if that's any help.
Actually, test-unit 1.x has assert_nil, too, I believe. You can always
add your own.
class Test::Unit::TestCase
def assert_nil_or_false(condition)
assert_nil(condition) && assert_false(condition)
end
end
Regards,
Dan
···
On Sep 1, 2:19 am, Martin DeMello <martindeme...@gmail.com> wrote:
Test::Unit could use a built-in antonym of assert, that succeeds if
its argument is either false or nil.
Yeah, but this one seems universal enough that it ought to be there by default.
martin
···
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Brian Candler <b.candler@pobox.com> wrote:
But I think the issue is moot, because writing custom asserts is a
perfectly standard thing to do. That is, just writedef assert_not(bool, *rest)
assert(!bool, *rest)
end
FWIW
Refute isn't a very good antonym for assert.
Refute means to disprove, assert means to claim that something is
true, but doesn't imply truth of that assertion.
Deny or Rebut would be better antonyms.
···
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:
On Sep 1, 2010, at 01:19 , Martin DeMello wrote:
Test::Unit could use a built-in antonym of assert, that succeeds if
its argument is either false or nil.this is why minitest has refute, which means it is available in ruby 1.9:
--
Rick DeNatale
Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Github: rubyredrick (Rick DeNatale) · GitHub
Twitter: @RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale
uhhh... you're fired?
···
On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:47 , Daniel Berger wrote:
class Test::Unit::TestCase
def assert_nil_or_false(condition)
assert_nil(condition) && assert_false(condition)
end
end
deny{} all the way.
Including many of the assert_not_yack_yack() out there should upgrade
to deny_yack_yack(). Less self-contradictory.
Also, Alex Chaffee's Wrong project has an assert{ yack yack } and
deny{ yack yack } where you write _anything_ for the yack yack, and
when it fails (or incorrectly succeeds!) it prints out all the details
of yack yack, including all intermediate variables names and their
values.
I wonder where he got the idea.
···
On Sep 1, 8:23 am, Rick DeNatale <rick.denat...@gmail.com> wrote:
Deny or Rebut would be better antonyms.
--
Phlip
Resume for Philip C Plumlee
blah blah blah... I've been through all of this before and in public no less. You had your chance. It is good enough and: "refute".size == "assert".size
···
On Sep 1, 2010, at 08:23 , Rick DeNatale wrote:
Refute isn't a very good antonym for assert.
Refute means to disprove, assert means to claim that something is
true, but doesn't imply truth of that assertion.Deny or Rebut would be better antonyms.
Hah, that's what I get for not actually trying my own code out first.
module Test::Unit::Assertions
def assert_nil_or_false(object, message = nil)
message = build_message(message, '<?> is not false or nil.',
object)
assert_block(message) do
object.nil? || object == false
end
end
end
Regards,
Dan
···
On Sep 1, 2:12 pm, Ryan Davis <ryand-r...@zenspider.com> wrote:
On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:47 , Daniel Berger wrote:
> class Test::Unit::TestCase
> def assert_nil_or_false(condition)
> assert_nil(condition) && assert_false(condition)
> end
> enduhhh... you're fired?
Hi --
···
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Daniel Berger wrote:
assert_block(message) do
object.nil? || object == false
!object would be equivalent there, and faster (about 1/3 the time for a
benchmark of mixed cases).
David
--
David A. Black, Senior Developer, Cyrus Innovation Inc.
The Ruby training with Black/Brown/McAnally
Compleat Philadelphia, PA, October 1-2, 2010
Rubyist http://www.compleatrubyist.com