I have a simple MSpec test in which I am passing a null value into a method parameter (of type string) in a Because statement. I then check that an exception is thrown in the It statement.
Because _of = () => _exception = Catch.Exception(() => foo(null));
It should_throw_an_exception = () =>_exception.ShouldBeOfType<Exception>();
I need another test when the parameter is an empty string and the assertion should stay the same. I could write another test, duplicating code.
Or, is there a neater way to do this kind of test in MSpec?
For things like these I would rather use NUnit's TestCaseAttribute to have all combinations of input parameters verified against the same code. MSpec just isn't the best tool for the job here, because it doesn't support test generators like the one mentioned above. Behaviors could help a bit, bit would only de-duplicate the Its. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with mixing test frameworks for things like the one you posted.
Related
Find the example here.
def a = condition ? " karate match statement " : "karate match statement"
Is it possible to do something like this??
This is not recommended practice for tests because tests should be deterministic.
The right thing to do is:
craft your request so that the response is 100% predictable. do not worry about code-duplication, this is sometimes necessary for tests
ignore the dynamic data if it is not relevant to the Scenario
use conditional logic to set "expected value" variables instead of complicating your match logic
use self-validation expressions or schema-validation expressions for specific parts of the JSON
use the if keyword and call a second feature file - or you can even set the name of the file to call dynamically via a variable
in some cases karate.abort() can be used to conditionally skip / exit early
That said, if you really insist on doing this in the same flow, Karate allows you to do a match via JS in 0.9.6.RC4 onwards.
See this thread for details: https://github.com/intuit/karate/issues/1202#issuecomment-653632397
The result of karate.match() will return a JSON in the form { pass: '#boolean', message: '#string' }
If none of the above options work - that means you are doing something really complicated, so write Java interop / code to handle this
In the process of learning Rust, I am getting acquainted with error propagation and the choice between unwrap and the ? operator. After writing some prototype code that only uses unwrap(), I would like to remove unwrap from reusable parts, where panicking on every error is inappropriate.
How would one avoid the use of unwrap in a closure, like in this example?
// todo is VecDeque<PathBuf>
let dir = fs::read_dir(&filename).unwrap();
todo.extend(dir.map(|dirent| dirent.unwrap().path()));
The first unwrap can be easily changed to ?, as long as the containing function returns Result<(), io::Error> or similar. However, the second unwrap, the one in dirent.unwrap().path(), cannot be changed to dirent?.path() because the closure must return a PathBuf, not a Result<PathBuf, io::Error>.
One option is to change extend to an explicit loop:
let dir = fs::read_dir(&filename)?;
for dirent in dir {
todo.push_back(dirent?.path());
}
But that feels wrong - the original extend was elegant and clearly reflected the intention of the code. (It might also have been more efficient than a sequence of push_backs.) How would an experienced Rust developer express error checking in such code?
How would one avoid the use of unwrap in a closure, like in this example?
Well, it really depends on what you wish to do upon failure.
should failure be reported to the user or be silent
if reported, should one failure be reported or all?
if a failure occur, should it interrupt processing?
For example, you could perfectly decide to silently ignore all failures and just skip the entries that fail. In this case, the Iterator::filter_map combined with Result::ok is exactly what you are asking for.
let dir = fs::read_dir(&filename)?;
let todos.extend(dir.filter_map(Result::ok));
The Iterator interface is full of goodies, it's definitely worth perusing when looking for tidier code.
Here is a solution based on filter_map suggested by Matthieu. It calls Result::map_err to ensure the error is "caught" and logged, sending it further to Result::ok and filter_map to remove it from iteration:
fn log_error(e: io::Error) {
eprintln!("{}", e);
}
(|| {
let dir = fs::read_dir(&filename)?;
todo.extend(dir
.filter_map(|res| res.map_err(log_error).ok()))
.map(|dirent| dirent.path()));
})().unwrap_or_else(log_error)
The title pretty much sums it up, but here's the long version anyway.
After posting a small snippet of perl code, I was told to avoid indirect object notation, "as it has several side effects". The comment referenced this particular line:
my $some_object = new Some::Module(FIELD => 'value');
As this is how I've always done it, in an effort to get with the times I therefore ask:
What's so bad about it? (specifically)
What are the potential (presumably negative) side effects?
How should that line be rewritten?
I was about to ask the commenter, but to me this is worthy of its own post.
The main problem is that it's ambiguous. Does
my $some_object = new Some::Module(FIELD => 'value');
mean to call the new method in the Some::Module package, or does it mean to call the new function in the current package with the result of calling the Module function in the Some package with the given parameters?
i.e, it could be parsed as:
# method call
my $some_object = Some::Module->new(FIELD => 'value');
# or function call
my $some_object = new(Some::Module(FIELD => 'value'));
The alternative is to use the explicit method call notation Some::Module->new(...).
Normally, the parser guesses correctly, but the best practice is to avoid the ambiguity.
What's so bad about it?
The problems with Indirect Method Notation are avoidable, but it's far easier to tell people to avoid Indirect Method Notation.
The main problem it's very easy to call the wrong function by accident. Take the following code, for example:
package Widget;
sub new { ... }
sub foo { ... }
sub bar { ... }
sub method {
...;
my $o = new SubWidget;
...;
}
1;
In that code, new SubWidget is expected to mean
SubWidget->new()
Instead, it actually means
new("SubWidget")
That said, using strict will catch most of these instances of this error. Were use strict; to be added to the above snippet, the following error would be produced:
Bareword "SubWidget" not allowed while "strict subs" in use at Widget.pm line 11.
That said, there are cases where using strict would not catch the error. They primarily involve the use of parens around the arguments of the method call (e.g. new SubWidget($x)).
So that means
Using Indirect Object Notation without parens can result in odd error messages.
Using Indirect Object Notation with parens can result in the wrong code being called.
The former is bearable, and the latter is avoidable. But rather than telling people "avoid using parens around the arguments of method calls using Indirect Method Notation", we simply tell people "avoid using Indirect Method Notation". It's just too fragile.
There's another issue. It's not just using Indirect Object Notation that's a problem, it's supporting it in Perl. The existence of the feature causes multiple problems. Primarily,
It causes some syntax errors to result in very odd/misleading error messages because the code appeared to be using ION when it wasn't.
It prevents useful features from being implemented since they clash with valid ION syntax.
On the plus side, using no indirect; helps the first problem.
How should that line be rewritten?
The correct way to write the method call is the following:
my $some_object = Some::Module->new(FIELD => 'value');
That said, even this syntax is ambiguous. It will first check if a function named Some::Module exists. But that's so very unlikely that very few people protect themselves from such problems. If you wanted to protect yourself, you could use the following:
my $some_object = Some::Module::->new(FIELD => 'value');
As to how to avoid it: There's a CPAN module that forbids the notation, acting like a pragma module:
no indirect;
http://metacpan.org/pod/indirect
The commenter just wanted to see Some::Module->new(FIELD => 'value'); as the constructor.
Perl can use indirect object syntax for other bare words that look like they might be methods, but nowadays the perlobj documentation suggests not to use it.
The general problem with it is that code written this way is ambiguous and exercises Perl's parser to test the namespace to e.g. check when you write method Namespace whether Namespace::method exists.
I have a function in another class file that gets information about the battery. In a form I have the following code:
If BatteryClass.getStatus_Battery_Charging = True Then
It appears Visual Studio accepts this. However, would it be better if I used the following code, which also works:
dim val as boolean = BatteryClass.getStatus_Battery_Charging
If val = True Then
Is there a difference between these two methods?
What you're asking in general is which approach is idiomatic.
The technical rule is not to invoke a method multiple times - unless you're specifically checking a volatile value for change - when its result can be preserved in a locally scoped variable. That's not what your asking but its important to understand that multiple calls should typically be bound to a variable.
That being said its better to produce less lines of code from a maintenance perspective as long as doing so improves the readability of your code. If you do have to declare a locally scoped variable to hold the return value of a method make sure to give the variable a meaningful name.
Prefer this [idiomatic VB.NET] one liner:
If BatteryClass.getStatus_Battery_Charging Then
over this:
Dim isBatteryCharging As Boolean = BatteryClass.getStatus_Battery_Charging
If isBatteryCharging Then
Another point you should concern yourself with are methods, which when invoked, create a side effect that affects the state of your program. In most circumstances it is undesirable to have a side effect causing method invoked multiple times - when possible rewrite such side affecting methods so that they do not cause any side effects. To limit the number of times a side effect will occur use the same local variable scoping rule instead of performing multiple invocations of the method.
No real difference.
The second is better if you need the value again of course. It's also marginally easier to debug when you have a value stored in a variable.
Personally I tend to use the first because I'm an old school C programmer at heart!
I'm currently working on my first major project in clojure and have run into a question regarding coding style and the most "clojure-esque" way of doing something. Basically I have a function I'm writing which takes in a data structure and a template that the function will try to massage the data structure into. The template structure will look something like this:
{
:key1 (:string (:opt :param))
:key2 (:int (:opt :param))
:key3 (:obj (:tpl :template-structure))
:key4 (:list (:tpl :template-structure))
}
Each key is an atom that will be searched for in the given data structure, and it's value will be attempted to be matched to the type given in the template structure. So it would look for :key1 and check that it's a string, for instance. The return value would be a map that has :key1 pointing to the value from the given data structure (the function could potentially change the value depending on the options given).
In the case of :obj it takes in another template structure, and recursively calls itself on that value and the template structure, and places the result from that in the return. However, if there's an error I want that error returned directly.
Similarly for lists I want it to basically do a map of the function again, except in the case of an error which I want returned directly.
My question is what is the best way to handle these errors? Some simple exception handling would be the easiest way, but I feel that it's not the most functional way. I could try and babysit the errors all the way up the chain with tons of if statements, but that also doesn't seem very sporting. Is there something simple I'm missing or is this just an ugly problem?
You might be interested in schematic, which does pretty similar stuff. You can see how it's used in the tests, and the implementation.
Basically I defined an error function, which returns nil for correctly-formatted data, or a string describing the error. Doing it with exceptions instead would make the plumbing easier, but would make it harder to get the detailed error messages like "[person: [first_name: expected string, got integer]]".