Reflection Matchers #614

sksamuel · 2019-01-28T14:42:33Z

Would it be useful to have matchers like a.shouldHaveMethod("foo") and a.shouldHaveAnnotation("foo") and so on.

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

LeoColman · 2019-01-28T15:05:38Z

These kind of things would be great if we could assert on the annotation too.

For example

@Table(name = "Foo")
class Klass {

}


Klass.shouldHaveAnnotation<Table>("Foo")  // Foo would be the first parameter. Annotation classes c an't be instantiated

LeoColman · 2019-01-28T15:05:50Z

Or something similar

sksamuel · 2019-01-28T15:10:15Z

klass.shouldHaveAnnotation<Foo>() { foo -> 
 ...
}

LeoColman · 2019-01-28T15:13:04Z

That's way better

LeoColman · 2019-01-28T15:13:45Z

One more matcher we would add a lambda to.

I don't think it's a big problem

sksamuel · 2019-01-28T15:39:58Z

I think it could be a new pattern we could use to great effect.

Anything where we are testing a type, we allow the type to be used in the lambda.

a.shouldBeAnInstanceOf<Foo>() { foo -> }
a.shouldHaveType<Foo>() { foo -> }
aTry.shouldBeSuccess<Success>() { success -> }

LeoColman · 2019-01-28T15:41:15Z

But then, is should the right keyword here?

I suppose a more correct way would be to add an and matcher of some sort

a.shouldBeInstanceOf<Foo>().andShould { foo -> }

sksamuel · 2019-01-28T15:42:08Z

What does the andShould give us over just accepting a lambda?

LeoColman · 2019-01-28T15:43:17Z

I believe that shouldBeX looks like a "terminal" operation, and it doesn't seem to be a lambda operation.

But I don't mind

sksamuel · 2019-01-28T16:07:11Z

I'm happy to discuss alternative nomenclature. Or as you say allow chained matchers.

…

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019, 15:43 Leonardo Colman Lopes ***@***.*** wrote: I believe that shouldBeX looks like a "terminal" operation, and it doesn't seem to be a lambda operation. But I don't mind — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#614 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAtZGjPRHy6kgMQG-IUMYCBbY89knYGQks5vHxqZgaJpZM4aWDkv> .

faogustavo · 2019-07-05T13:22:43Z

Does the development of this issue worth? Because annotations are not "business rules" to be validated on the test.

sksamuel · 2019-07-05T13:24:03Z

It's still useful, you may be testing a framework, like I am doing at the moment.

…

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 08:22, Gustavo Fão Valvassori < ***@***.***> wrote: Does the development of this issue worth? Because annotations are not "business rules" to be validated on the test. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#614>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFVSGVCV57F7UVCFJCA4Z3P55DKHANCNFSM4GSYHEXQ> .

faogustavo · 2019-07-05T14:12:00Z

Okay. I can do this issue this weekend.

sksamuel · 2019-07-05T15:47:27Z

awesome

…

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 09:12, Gustavo Fão Valvassori < ***@***.***> wrote: Okay. I can do this issue this weekend. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#614>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFVSGRU5BQXVJFPIROJRP3P55JDDANCNFSM4GSYHEXQ> .

faogustavo · 2019-07-06T19:01:00Z

@sksamuel @Kerooker I already created these matchers:

Reflection
`kclass.shouldHaveAnnotations()`	Asserts that the class has some annotation
`kclass.shouldHaveAnnotations(n)`	Asserts that the class has exactly N annotation
`kclass.shouldBeAnnotatedWith<T>()`	Asserts that the class is annotated with the given type
`kclass.shouldBeAnnotatedWith<T> { block }`	Asserts that the class is annotated with the given type, and then, runs the block with the annotation
`kclass.shouldHaveFunction(name)`	Asserts that the class have a function with the given name
`kclass.shouldHaveFunction(name) { block }`	Asserts that the class have a function with the given name, and then, runs the block with the function
`kfunction.shouldHaveAnnotations()`	Asserts that the function has some annotation
`kfunction.shouldHaveAnnotations(n)`	Asserts that the function has exactly N annotation
`kfunction.shouldBeAnnotatedWith<T>()`	Asserts that the function is annotated with the given type
`kfunction.shouldBeAnnotatedWith<T> { block }`	Asserts that the function is annotated with the given type, and then, runs the block with the annotation
`ktype.shouldBeOfType<T>()`	Asserts that the KType has the type T

Do you know others that can be useful?

sksamuel · 2019-07-07T21:45:28Z

A.shouldHaveMemberProperty.

Also the above that takes a lamba of KProperty to Unit

A.shouldHavePrimaryConstructor { constructor-> }

sksamuel · 2019-07-07T21:47:21Z

KFunction.shouldHaveReturnType

faogustavo · 2019-07-09T01:55:58Z

Okay, 'til now, I created the following matchers:

Reflection
`kclass.shouldHaveAnnotations()`	Asserts that the class has some annotation
`kclass.shouldHaveAnnotations(n)`	Asserts that the class has exactly N annotation
`kclass.shouldBeAnnotatedWith<T>()`	Asserts that the class is annotated with the given type
`kclass.shouldBeAnnotatedWith<T> { block }`	Asserts that the class is annotated with the given type, and then, runs the block with the annotation
`kclass.shouldHaveFunction(name)`	Asserts that the class have a function with the given name
`kclass.shouldHaveFunction(name) { block }`	Asserts that the class have a function with the given name, and then, runs the block with the function
`kclass.shouldHaveMemberProperty(name)`	Asserts that the class have a member property with the given name
`kclass.shouldHaveMemberProperty(name) { block }`	Asserts that the class have a member property with the given name, and then, runs the block with the function
`kfunction.shouldHaveAnnotations()`	Asserts that the function has some annotation
`kfunction.shouldHaveAnnotations(n)`	Asserts that the function has exactly N annotation
`kfunction.shouldBeAnnotatedWith<T>()`	Asserts that the function is annotated with the given type
`kfunction.shouldBeAnnotatedWith<T> { block }`	Asserts that the function is annotated with the given type, and then, runs the block with the annotation
`kfunction.shouldHaveReturnType<T>()`	Asserts that the function returns the given type
`kproperty.shouldBeOfType<T>()`	Asserts that the property is of the given type
`kcallable.shouldHaveVisibility(visibility)`	Asserts that the member have the given visibility
`kcallable.shouldBeFinal()`	Asserts that the member is final
`ktype.shouldBeOfType<T>()`	Asserts that the KType has the type T

In my TODO List I still have those:

sksamuel · 2019-07-09T17:58:59Z

Looks good.

…

On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 20:55, Gustavo Fão Valvassori < ***@***.***> wrote: Okay, 'til now, I created the following matchers: Reflection kclass.shouldHaveAnnotations() Asserts that the class has some annotation kclass.shouldHaveAnnotations(n) Asserts that the class has exactly N annotation kclass.shouldBeAnnotatedWith<T>() Asserts that the class is annotated with the given type kclass.shouldBeAnnotatedWith<T> { block } Asserts that the class is annotated with the given type, and then, runs the block with the annotation kclass.shouldHaveFunction(name) Asserts that the class have a function with the given name kclass.shouldHaveFunction(name) { block } Asserts that the class have a function with the given name, and then, runs the block with the function kclass.shouldHaveMemberProperty(name) Asserts that the class have a member property with the given name kclass.shouldHaveMemberProperty(name) { block } Asserts that the class have a member property with the given name, and then, runs the block with the function kfunction.shouldHaveAnnotations() Asserts that the function has some annotation kfunction.shouldHaveAnnotations(n) Asserts that the function has exactly N annotation kfunction.shouldBeAnnotatedWith<T>() Asserts that the function is annotated with the given type kfunction.shouldBeAnnotatedWith<T> { block } Asserts that the function is annotated with the given type, and then, runs the block with the annotation kfunction.shouldHaveReturnType<T>() Asserts that the function returns the given type kproperty.shouldBeOfType<T>() Asserts that the property is of the given type kcallable.shouldHaveVisibility(visibility) Asserts that the member have the given visibility kcallable.shouldBeFinal() Asserts that the member is final ktype.shouldBeOfType<T>() Asserts that the KType has the type T In my TODO List I still have those: - kclass.shouldBeSubtypeOf() - kclass.shouldBeData() - kclass.shouldBeSealed() - kclass.isCompanion() - kclass.shouldHavePrimaryConstructor() - kclass.shouldHaveVisibility(visibilty) - kfunction.shouldBeInline() - kfunction.shouldBeInfix() - kproperty.shouldBeConst() - kproperty.shouldBeLateInit() - kcallable.shouldBeOpen() - kcallable.shouldBeAbstract() - kcallable.shouldBeSuspend() - kcallable.shouldHaveParameters(listOf()) // Names of parameters - kcallable.shouldBeCalledWith(listOf()) // Types of parameter - kcallable.shouldHaveParameterWithName(name) // also accept lambda - kparameter.shouldBeOfType() - kparameter.shouldBeOptional() - kparameter.shouldBeVararg() - kparameter.shoudBeAtIndex(index) // check the position of the parameter — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#614>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFVSGUSMSOTF5JBUP52NI3P6PV25ANCNFSM4GSYHEXQ> .

sksamuel · 2019-07-13T16:41:44Z

We can include this in 3.4 which we will release in the next few days, if it's ready @faogustavo

faogustavo · 2019-07-16T16:27:04Z

We can include this in 3.4 which we will release in the next few days, if it's ready @faogustavo

I've been a little bit busy these last days. I'll open the PR to you start the review but there are a few methods missing.

sksamuel · 2019-07-16T16:35:11Z

That would be great, we can merge what's ready.

…

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 11:27, Gustavo Fão Valvassori < ***@***.***> wrote: We can include this in 3.4 which we will release in the next few days, if it's ready @faogustavo <https://github.com/faogustavo> I've been a little bit busy these last days. I'll open the PR to you start the review but there are a few methods missing. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#614>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFVSGXT2VHSDER2TLTZQCDP7XZFTANCNFSM4GSYHEXQ> .

* added initial reflection matchers * refactoring and split matchers into files * added matchers for callable, function and property

sksamuel added enhancement ✨ Suggestions for adding new features or improving existing ones. potential labels Jan 28, 2019

sksamuel added this to the 3.3 milestone Jan 28, 2019

sksamuel removed the potential label Jan 28, 2019

sksamuel mentioned this issue Jan 30, 2019

KotlinTest Roadmap 3.3 #628

Closed

20 tasks

sksamuel modified the milestones: 3.3, 3.4 Feb 5, 2019

sksamuel mentioned this issue Feb 16, 2019

KotlinTest Roadmap 4.0 #661

Closed

88 tasks

sksamuel mentioned this issue Jul 13, 2019

KotlinTest Roadmap 3.4 #788

Closed

39 tasks

faogustavo mentioned this issue Jul 16, 2019

Reflection matchers (#614) #894

Merged

4 tasks

sksamuel closed this as completed in #894 Jul 16, 2019

sksamuel pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 16, 2019

Reflection matchers (#614) (#894)

5ab61b5

* added initial reflection matchers * refactoring and split matchers into files * added matchers for callable, function and property

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Reflection Matchers #614

Reflection Matchers #614

sksamuel commented Jan 28, 2019

LeoColman commented Jan 28, 2019

LeoColman commented Jan 28, 2019

sksamuel commented Jan 28, 2019

LeoColman commented Jan 28, 2019

LeoColman commented Jan 28, 2019

sksamuel commented Jan 28, 2019

LeoColman commented Jan 28, 2019

sksamuel commented Jan 28, 2019

LeoColman commented Jan 28, 2019

sksamuel commented Jan 28, 2019 via email

faogustavo commented Jul 5, 2019

sksamuel commented Jul 5, 2019 via email

faogustavo commented Jul 5, 2019

sksamuel commented Jul 5, 2019 via email

faogustavo commented Jul 6, 2019

sksamuel commented Jul 7, 2019

sksamuel commented Jul 7, 2019

faogustavo commented Jul 9, 2019 •

edited

Loading

sksamuel commented Jul 9, 2019 via email

sksamuel commented Jul 13, 2019

faogustavo commented Jul 16, 2019

sksamuel commented Jul 16, 2019 via email

Reflection Matchers #614

Reflection Matchers #614

Comments

sksamuel commented Jan 28, 2019

LeoColman commented Jan 28, 2019

LeoColman commented Jan 28, 2019

sksamuel commented Jan 28, 2019

LeoColman commented Jan 28, 2019

LeoColman commented Jan 28, 2019

sksamuel commented Jan 28, 2019

LeoColman commented Jan 28, 2019

sksamuel commented Jan 28, 2019

LeoColman commented Jan 28, 2019

sksamuel commented Jan 28, 2019 via email

faogustavo commented Jul 5, 2019

sksamuel commented Jul 5, 2019 via email

faogustavo commented Jul 5, 2019

sksamuel commented Jul 5, 2019 via email

faogustavo commented Jul 6, 2019

sksamuel commented Jul 7, 2019

sksamuel commented Jul 7, 2019

faogustavo commented Jul 9, 2019 • edited Loading

sksamuel commented Jul 9, 2019 via email

sksamuel commented Jul 13, 2019

faogustavo commented Jul 16, 2019

sksamuel commented Jul 16, 2019 via email

faogustavo commented Jul 9, 2019 •

edited

Loading