Skip to content
This repository

HTTPS clone URL

Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with HTTPS or Subversion.

Download ZIP

Wrong provides a general assert method that takes a predicate block. Assertion failure messages are rich in detail.

branch: master

This branch is 0 commits ahead and 0 commits behind master

Fetching latest commit…

Octocat-spinner-32-eaf2f5

Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time

Octocat-spinner-32 lib
Octocat-spinner-32 test
Octocat-spinner-32 .braids
Octocat-spinner-32 .gitignore
Octocat-spinner-32 Gemfile
Octocat-spinner-32 HISTORY.txt
Octocat-spinner-32 LICENSE
Octocat-spinner-32 README.markdown
Octocat-spinner-32 Rakefile
Octocat-spinner-32 examples.rb
Octocat-spinner-32 wrong.gemspec
README.markdown

"Feels so right, it can't be Wrong"

Someone is Wrong on the Internet

Abstract

Wrong provides a general assert method that takes a predicate block. Assertion failure messages are rich in detail. The Wrong idea is to replace all those countless assert_this, assert_that, should_something library methods which only exist to give a more useful failure message than "assertion failed". Wrong replaces all of them in one fell swoop, since if you can write it in Ruby, Wrong can make a sensible failure message out of it.

Wrong is alpha-quality. We'd very much appreciate feedback and bug reports. There are plenty of things left to be done to make the results look uniformly clean and beautiful. We want your feedback, and especially to give us cases where either it blows up or the output is ugly or uninformative.

It relies on Predicated for its main failure message.

Inspired by assert { 2.0 } but rewritten from scratch. Compatible with Ruby 1.8 and 1.9.

Usage

Wrong provides a simple assert method that takes a block:

require "wrong"

include Wrong::Assert

assert { 1 == 1 }
 ==> nil

assert { 2 == 1 }
 ==> Expected (2 == 1), but 2 is not equal to 1

If your assertion is more than a simple predicate, then Wrong will split it into parts and show you the values of all the relevant subexpressions.

x = 7; y = 10; assert { x == 7 && y == 11 }
 ==>
Expected ((x == 7) and (y == 11)), but
    (x == 7) is true
    x is 7
    (y == 11) is false
    y is 10

age = 24
name = "Gaga"
assert { age >= 18 && ["Britney", "Snooki"].include?(name) }
 ==>
Expected ((age >= 18) and ["Britney", "Snooki"].include?(name)), but
    (age >= 18) is true
    age is 24
    ["Britney", "Snooki"].include?(name) is false
    name is "Gaga"

And a companion, 'deny':

deny{'abc'.include?('bc')}
 ==> Didn't expect "abc".include?("bc"), but 'abc' includes 'bc'

There's also a convenience method for catching errors:

assert{ rescuing{raise "vanilla"}.message == "chocolate" }
 ==>
Expected (rescuing { raise("vanilla") }.message == "chocolate"), but 'vanilla' is not equal to 'chocolate'

And one for capturing output streams:

assert { capturing { puts "hi" } == "hi\n" }
assert { capturing(:stderr) { $stderr.puts "hi" } == "hi\n" }
out, err = capturing(:stdout, :stderr) { ... }

If you want to compare floats, try this:

require "wrong/close_to"

assert { 5.0.close_to?(5.0001) }   # default tolerance = 0.001
assert { 5.0.close_to?(5.1, 0.5) } # optional tolerance parameter

More examples are in the file examples.rb http://github.com/alexch/wrong/blob/master/examples.rb

There's also a spreadsheet showing a translation from Test::Unit and RSpec to Wrong, with notes, at this Google Doc. (Ask alexch@gmail.com if you want editing privileges.)

And don't miss the slideshare presentation.

Apology

So does the world need another assertion framework? In fact, it does not! We actually believe the world needs fewer assert methods.

The Wrong idea is to replace all those countless assert_this, assert_that, should_something library methods which only exist to give a more useful failure message than "assertion failed". Wrong replaces all of them in one fell swoop, since if you can write it in Ruby, Wrong can make a sensible failure message out of it.

Even the lowly workhorse assert_equal is bloated compared to Wrong: would you rather write this

assert_equal time, money

or this

assert { time == money }

? The Wrong way has the advantage of being plain, transparent Ruby code, not an awkward DSL that moves "equal" out of its natural place between the comparands. Plus, WYSIWYG! You know just from looking at it that "equal" means ==, not eql? or === or =~.

Moreover, much like TDD itself, Wrong encourages you to write cleaner code. If your assertion messages are not clear and "Englishy", then maybe it's time for you to refactor a bit -- extract an informatively named variable or method, maybe push some function onto its natural object a la the Law of Demeter...

Wrong also lets you put the expected and actual values in any order you want! Consider the failure messages for

assert { current_user == "joe" } # => Expected (current_user == "joe") but current_user is "fred"
assert { "joe" == current_user } # => Expected ("joe" == current_user) but current_user is "fred"

You get just the information you want, and none you don't want. At least, that's the plan! :-)

Algorithm

So wait a second. How do we do it? Doesn't Ruby have poor support for AST introspection? Well, yes, it does, so we cheat: we figure out what file and line the assert block is defined in, then open the file, read the code, and parse it directly using Ryan Davis' amazing RubyParser and Ruby2Ruby. You can bask in the kludge by examining chunk.rb and assert.rb. If you find some code it can't parse, please send it our way.

Before you get your knickers in a twist about how this is totally unacceptable because it doesn't support this or that use case, here are our caveats and excuses:

  • It works! Tested in 1.8.6, 1.8.7, 1.9.1, and 1.9.2-rc2. (Thank you, rvm!)
  • Your code needs to be in a file. That means it doesn't work in IRB. (If you're developing Ruby code without saving it to a mounted disk, then sorry, Wrong is not right for you.)
  • It's a development-time testing library, not a production runtime library, so there are no security or filesystem issues.
  • eval isn't evil, it's just misunderstood.
  • It makes a few assumptions about the structure of your code, leading to some restrictions:
    • You can't have more than one call to assert per line. (This should not be a problem since even if you're nesting asserts for some bizarre reason, we assume you know where your Return key is. And actually, technically you can put two asserts on a line, but it always describes the first one it sees, which means that if the second one executes, its failure message will be incorrect or broken.)
    • You can't use metaprogramming to write your assert blocks.
    • All variables and methods must be available in the binding of the assertion block.

Adapters

Adapters for various test frameworks sit under wrong/adapters.

Currently we support

  • Test::Unit - require 'wrong/adapters/test_unit'
  • Minitest - require 'wrong/adapters/minitest'
  • RSpec - require 'wrong/adapters/rspec'

To use these, put the appropriate require in your helper; it should extend the framework enough that you can use assert { } in your test cases without extra fussing around.

Explanations

assert and deny can take an optional explanation, e.g.

  assert("since we're on Earth") { sky.blue? }

Since the point of Wrong is to make asserts self-explanatory, you should feel free to use explanations only when they would add something that you couldn't get from reading the (failed) assertion code itself. Don't bother doing things like this:

  assert("the sky should be blue") { sky.blue? } # redundant

The failure message of the above would be something like "Expected sky.blue? but sky is :green" which is not made clearer by the addition of "the sky should be blue". We already know it should be blue since we see right there ("Expected (sky.blue?)") that we're expecting it to be blue.

And if your assertion code isn't self-explanatory, then that's a hint that you might need to do some refactoring until it is. (Yes, even test code should be clean as a whistle. Especially test code.)

Formatters

Enhancements for error messages sit under wrong/message.

Currently we support special messages for

  • String ==
  • Enumerable ==
    • including nested string elements

To use these formatters, you have to explicitly require them! You may also need to gem install diff-lcs (since it's an optional dependency).

require "wrong/message/string_diff"
assert { "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" ==
         "the quick brown hamster jumped over the lazy gerbil" }
 ==>
Expected ("the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" == "the quick brown hamster jumped over the lazy gerbil"), but "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" is not equal to "the quick brown hamster jumped over the lazy gerbil"

string diff:
the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
                ^^^
the quick brown hamster jumped over the lazy gerbil
                ^^^^^^^

require "wrong/message/array_diff"
assert { ["venus", "mars", "pluto", "saturn"] ==
         ["venus", "earth", "pluto", "neptune"] }
 ==>
Expected (["venus", "mars", "pluto", "saturn"] == ["venus", "earth", "pluto", "neptune"]), but ["venus", "mars", "pluto", "saturn"] is not equal to ["venus", "earth", "pluto", "neptune"]

array diff:
["venus", "mars" , "pluto", "saturn" ]
["venus", "earth", "pluto", "neptune"]
          ^                 ^

[Bug: turns out 'diff' and 'diff-lcs' are incompatible with each other. We're working on a fix.]

Color

Apparently, no test framework is successful unless and until it supports console colors. So now we do. Put

Wrong.config[:color] = true

in your test helper or rakefile or wherever and get ready to be bedazzled.

Helper Assert Methods

If you really want to, you can define your procs in one method, pass it in to another method, and have that method assert it. This is very bizarre and you probably shouldn't do it. Wrong will do its best to figure out where the actual assertion code is but it might not succeed.

If you're in Ruby 1.8, you really shouldn't do it! But if you do, you can use the "depth" parameter to give Wrong a better hint about how far up the stack it should crawl to find the code. See assert_test.rb for more details, if you dare.

Authors

Etc

Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.