Testomg: doing def test_blah or test "blah" do

rubyonrails-talk
1

Hey, I'm wondering about the distinction between writing test methods like

1. def test_something_to_test

end

and like

2. test "something to test" do

end

It seems like there's no difference. I did notice, however, that #2 can't be done in a class that extends Test::Unit::TestCase, while it can be done in one that extends ActionController::TestCase. I also noticed that #1 works for classes that extend either.

So which should I use? What is the difference?

Thanks in advance.

2

Hey, I'm wondering about the distinction between writing test methods like

1. def test_something_to_test

end

and like

2. test "something to test" do

end

It seems like there's no difference. I did notice, however, that #2 can't be done in a class that extends Test::Unit::TestCase, while it can be done in one that extends ActionController::TestCase. I also noticed that #1 works for classes that extend either.

So which should I use? What is the difference?

test "..." do

end

is added by Active Support (as part of ActiveSupport::TestCase (which ActionController::TestCase inherits from)) which is why you can't use it in a Test::Unit::TestCase subclass.

It's really just a stylistic difference. One of the few differences I'm aware of is that Active Support's test "..." allows you not to provide a method body (and test runs will then tell you about that) and it will raise an exception if you try to create two tests with the same name (whereas when just defining instance methods the 2nd definition would overwrite the first

Fred

3

Frederick Cheung wrote:

...One of the few differences I'm aware of is that Active Support's test "..." allows you not to provide a method body (and test runs will then tell you about that) and it will raise an exception if you try to create two tests with the same name (whereas when just defining instance methods the 2nd definition would overwrite the first

Fred

Thanks, Fred. But what's the advantage of not providing a method body?

And for your second point ("rais[ing] and exception"): so if I have a class that inherits from ActiveSupport::TestCase, creating 2 methods with identical names will cause an error, while if I have a class that inherits from Test::Unit::TestCase, creating 2 methods with identical names will NOT cause an error but instead result in the use of the 2nd definition over the 1st?

Just making sure I understand...thanks again!

4

Frederick Cheung wrote: > ...One of the few differences > I'm aware of is that Active Support's test "..." allows you not to > provide a method body (and test runs will then tell you about that) > and it will raise an exception if you try to create two tests with the > same name (whereas when just defining instance methods the 2nd > definition would overwrite the first

> Fred

Thanks, Fred. But what's the advantage of not providing a method body?

I think it's just a way of spelling out what tests you want to write (and be reminded that they're still unwritten)

And for your second point ("rais[ing] and exception"): so if I have a class that inherits from ActiveSupport::TestCase, creating 2 methods with identical names will cause an error, while if I have a class that inherits from Test::Unit::TestCase, creating 2 methods with identical names will NOT cause an error but instead result in the use of the 2nd definition over the 1st?

Yup.

5

Frederick Cheung wrote: