Confusing code sample for assert_send
|ruby -v:||ruby 2.0.0p247 (2013-06-27 revision 41674) [x86_64-linux]||Backport:||1.9.3: UNKNOWN, 2.0.0: UNKNOWN|
Test::Unit::Assertsions#assert_send has the code sample
assert_send([[1, 2], :member?, 1]) # -> pass assert_send([[1, 2], :member?, 4]) # -> fail
Having an array within an array is somewhat confusing. When I first read it, I ignored the extra square brackets. A less confusing example would be
assert_send(["Hello world", :include?, "Hello"]) # -> pass assert_send(["Hello world", :include?, "Goodbye"]) # -> fail
- lib/test/unit/assertions.rb: [DOC] better example for assert_send() Patch by Andrew Grimm [Bug #8975]
#3 Updated by Andrew Grimm almost 2 years ago
To be honest, it's not so much a "legacy app" issue as a "legacy programmer" issue.
I started programming back in Ruby 1.8.6. I don't use any opinionated web development frameworks such as Rails (I don't do web development at all, actually!), so nothing told me to switch to minitest. I used 'require "test/unit"' back then, and I still use it now. I don't actually know whether I use test/unit or whether Ruby 1.9/2.0 uses minitest with a compatibility layer. I also don't know what advantages there are in switching from test/unit to minitest.
When I switched from 1.9.x to 2.0, the way that tests were outputted changed, in that you usually don't get a series of dots being printed out for each test. That gave me the impression that whatever I was using was non-legacy.
Is test/unit considered legacy?
I think that documenting the advantages of minitest over test/unit, or that test/unit is considered legacy, may be helpful. Maybe in the documentation for test/unit?
#4 Updated by Zachary Scott almost 2 years ago
Please see #8778 for reference.
To answer your question, lib/test (test/unit) is a legacy shim.
I don't think documenting minitest advantages will help, because minitest may not stay in the stdlib forever.
We could mention other libraries, including the full TU2 gem for those looking to upgrade. I think the natural progression is TU -> TU2, not TU -> MT
#5 Updated by Zachary Scott over 1 year ago
- Status changed from Assigned to Closed
- % Done changed from 0 to 100