For the first case (without assertion),
i could put the played_with() method in an instance (a role, in Perl).
If i left it in the test file, that would become a problem as soon as i
will have several test files.
I'm less sure about the second case.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:40 PM, pierre masci <piemas25@...> wrote:
I'm learning Perl and TDD.
I'm thinking both about methods that will "run a fairly similar part of
several test cases",
and about methods who will be tests by themself : they will contain
assertions.
As a simple example, the Bowling-Game kata :
the exercise consists in building a Bowling-Game class,
which will calculate the score of a player, based on the number of pins
knocked at each roll.
For many tests, i need to do :
{
my @rolls = # Set up a test case here
my $expected_result = # Idem
foreach my $pins_knocked ( @rolls ) {
$game->rolled($pins_knocked);
}
my $result = $game->score();
cmp_ok($result, '==', $expected_score, # Describe your test here );
}
I like to refactor this into :
{
my @rolls = # Set up a test case here
my $expected_result = # Idem
my $result = $game->played_with(@rolls)
->score();
cmp_ok($result, '==', $expected_score, # Describe your test here );
}
played_with() is the type of sugar function that i want to create.
The other case can can be illustrated with the the
calculates_correct_score_with() sugar function which would directly replace
the above code by :
{
my @rolls = # Set up a test case here
my $expected_result = # Idem
$game->calculates_correct_score_with(@rolls, $expected_score);
}
What do you think ?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
There are a number of reasons you might feel inclined to make a "testable"
subclass. Most of the time there is actually a simpler way to do it. To
help I'd need to understand why you are doing it. Could you explain what
these "sugar methods" do?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:06 AM, pierre masci <piemas25@...>
wrote:
**
Is it a good or bad idea to subclass the Vehicule class with the
Vehicule_ForTests class,
which would contain all the "sugar" methods that i use to test the
Vehicule
class ?
It seems good, to not add useless methods to the public API...
but one could say that i can obtain the same result by starting my
"sugar
for tests" methods with "_T" for instance.
It still feels nice to have these functions in a separate place.
Could it be dangerous or uncomfortable, too ?
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
