[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

testunit message override?

Ronald E Jeffries

9/21/2006 1:19:00 AM

If this assert fails:

assert_equal(Date.new(2006,4,15), calc.disbursal_date)

it prints something like:

test_PayFifteenthAfterQuarter(ProjectTest) [./projecttest.rb:13]:
<#<Date: 4907679/2,0,2299161>> expected but was
<#<Date: 4907681/2,0,2299161>>.

With the dates in a rather odd format, as you see above. Yet Date's to_s method
is perfectly reasonable.

I looked in the TestUnit docs for AssertionMessage, called by build_message, but
if it's in there I couldn't find it.

If I ever knew how to override TestUnit's printing, I've forgotten how. Please
remind me what's going on or point me to it.

Thanks,

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.
9 Answers

Paul Lutus

9/21/2006 1:42:00 AM

0

Ron Jeffries wrote:

/ ...

> If I ever knew how to override TestUnit's printing, I've forgotten how.
> Please remind me what's going on or point me to it.

Have you printed out both the test date and the source date, to see how they
look to the eye? If neither date produces an error this way, it's hard to
see how they could do so in a test suite.

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.ara...

James Gray

9/21/2006 2:14:00 AM

0

On Sep 20, 2006, at 8:20 PM, Ron Jeffries wrote:

> If this assert fails:
>
> assert_equal(Date.new(2006,4,15), calc.disbursal_date)

Not sure if this answers your question, but you can provide a
replacement message as a third parameter.

Hope that helps.

James Edward Gray II

Logan Capaldo

9/21/2006 2:21:00 AM

0

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:20:06AM +0900, Ron Jeffries wrote:
> If this assert fails:
>
> assert_equal(Date.new(2006,4,15), calc.disbursal_date)
>
> it prints something like:
>
> test_PayFifteenthAfterQuarter(ProjectTest) [./projecttest.rb:13]:
> <#<Date: 4907679/2,0,2299161>> expected but was
> <#<Date: 4907681/2,0,2299161>>.
>
> With the dates in a rather odd format, as you see above. Yet Date's to_s method
> is perfectly reasonable.
>
It's not calling Date#to_s, it's calling Date#inspect. I think you can
do:
assert_equal( a = Date.new(2006, 4, 15), b = calc.disbursal_date,
"Expected Date of #{a}, got date of #{b}")

Bill Kelly

9/21/2006 3:12:00 AM

0

From: "Logan Capaldo" <logancapaldo@gmail.com>
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:20:06AM +0900, Ron Jeffries wrote:
>> If this assert fails:
>>
>> assert_equal(Date.new(2006,4,15), calc.disbursal_date)
>>
>> it prints something like:
>>
>> test_PayFifteenthAfterQuarter(ProjectTest) [./projecttest.rb:13]:
>> <#<Date: 4907679/2,0,2299161>> expected but was
>> <#<Date: 4907681/2,0,2299161>>.
>>
>> With the dates in a rather odd format, as you see above. Yet Date's to_s method
>> is perfectly reasonable.
>>
> It's not calling Date#to_s, it's calling Date#inspect. I think you can
> do:
> assert_equal( a = Date.new(2006, 4, 15), b = calc.disbursal_date,
> "Expected Date of #{a}, got date of #{b}")

Alternately,

class Date
alias_method :inspect, :to_s
end

...to replace the old :inspect with :to_s.



Regards,

Bill

Ronald E Jeffries

9/22/2006 1:54:00 AM

0

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:20:36 +0900, Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> With the dates in a rather odd format, as you see above. Yet Date's to_s method
>> is perfectly reasonable.
>>
>It's not calling Date#to_s, it's calling Date#inspect. I think you can
>do:
>assert_equal( a = Date.new(2006, 4, 15), b = calc.disbursal_date,
> "Expected Date of #{a}, got date of #{b}")

Ah. #inspect. I did know the trick of the message parm, but it still prints the
inspect anyway. I would have liked to be rid of it, or to have the code call
to_s. I suppose I could override inspect if I really care.

Thanks!

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

Ronald E Jeffries

9/22/2006 1:54:00 AM

0

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:11:31 +0900, "Bill Kelly" <billk@cts.com> wrote:

>Alternately,
>
>class Date
> alias_method :inspect, :to_s
>end
>
>..to replace the old :inspect with :to_s.

I just might. Thanks!

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

Devin Mullins

9/22/2006 2:08:00 AM

0

Bill Kelly wrote:
> class Date
> alias_method :inspect, :to_s
alias inspect to_s # alternately
> end

Devin

Ryan Davis

9/22/2006 2:43:00 AM

0


On Sep 21, 2006, at 6:55 PM, Ron Jeffries wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:20:36 +0900, Logan Capaldo
> <logancapaldo@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> With the dates in a rather odd format, as you see above. Yet
>>> Date's to_s method
>>> is perfectly reasonable.
>>>
>> It's not calling Date#to_s, it's calling Date#inspect. I think you
>> can
>> do:
>> assert_equal( a = Date.new(2006, 4, 15), b = calc.disbursal_date,
>> "Expected Date of #{a}, got date of #{b}")
>
> Ah. #inspect. I did know the trick of the message parm, but it
> still prints the
> inspect anyway. I would have liked to be rid of it, or to have the
> code call
> to_s. I suppose I could override inspect if I really care.

The message will use to_s, but without it, assert_equal and friends
will use inspect. I don't like Date's inspect either so I'll often
assert_equal against the #to_i results instead. That way it is
obvious if I'm off by +/- 1 or my code is just plain wack.

(oh, and hi Ron... long time!)

Ronald E Jeffries

9/28/2006 2:23:00 AM

0

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:43:18 +0900, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:

>The message will use to_s, but without it, assert_equal and friends
>will use inspect. I don't like Date's inspect either so I'll often
>assert_equal against the #to_i results instead. That way it is
>obvious if I'm off by +/- 1 or my code is just plain wack.

Yes. I preferred the date format for my purposes, and wasn't aware that it was
inspect that was being used.
>
>(oh, and hi Ron... long time!)

Hi back!

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.