-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improvements to Pioneers assertions #298
Labels
⚙️ component: Pioneer
Issues about Pioneer own things (e.g. utils)
🚦 status: in progress
📖 theme: cleanup
🏗️ type: enhancement
Projects
Comments
Michael1993
added
🚦 status: in discussion
📖 theme: cleanup
⚙️ component: Pioneer
Issues about Pioneer own things (e.g. utils)
🚦 status: waiting for feedback
🏗️ type: enhancement
and removed
🚦 status: waiting for feedback
labels
Jul 14, 2020
Bukama
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 14, 2020
In 0b79db8 (#6 / #218), we moved all assertion-like methods onto the `ExecutionResults` class even though that wasn't a good fit. The intention was to collect all such methods to then more easily replace them with proper AssertJ-like assertions that we needed to write ourselves. This change implements these methods. The API is pretty good already, but we expect that after using it for a while the experience with it as well as new use cases may lead to further changes (see #298). Closes: #232 PR: #245
Please remember to add your contribution of the assertions to the README. :) |
I'm open for improvements |
Probably should expose published report entries and thrown exceptions to miscellaneous assertions. |
11 tasks
After working on the concurrency PR, I realised that adding thrown exceptions from indirectly executed tests makes debugging failing assertions a lot easier, so I added that too |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
⚙️ component: Pioneer
Issues about Pioneer own things (e.g. utils)
🚦 status: in progress
📖 theme: cleanup
🏗️ type: enhancement
We decided on stream that the current state of #245 is good enough to merge but there is room for improvement.
Some starting ideas:
ExecutionResultAssert
into test case assertions, report entry assertions and test suite assertions.ExecutionResultAssert
could beSingleTestAssert
,TestCaseAssert
could beStartedTestAssert
, etc.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: