Avoid the hassle of restructuring comments into functions.
Testify turns selected comments into automatically evaluated scripts, while remaining as comments embedded within the code. Evaluate these comments directly from within a test, or in any other way preferred.
Rename the (comment) to (test-comment) and evaluate with (eval-in-ns 'your-namespace). Testify will find the test-comment and evaluate its content for you.
The test-comment is an empty macro ignoring its body, just like comment, that Testify recognizes. Testify can easily be told to evaluate content of any other top level form, while test-comment is a default.
Testify use levels of isolation. While eval-in-ns evaluates expressions in its namespace, like when evaluating comments manually, its sibling eval-as-use evaluates from within a temporary namespace, preventing pollution. This is more suitable for repeatable tests.
Testify reads source code, and keeps track of where it is. Code should be highlighted when a test assertion fails, even though the assertion is in a comment.
Testify is not a testing framework, but rather a pun on: to witness, reveal comment, display it in the repl.
Only available on the JVM
You are probably used to evaluate code manually within comment expressions, Rich comments.
This is very similar to writing in a repl, but you select and evaluate an expression in the source code file rather than writing the expression up front. These expressions are hidden behind comments since they are expressions to interact with, rather than being part of the system. This is a very popular development technique in lisps, like Clojure.
You have comments like this in the source files:
(comment
(def a 2)
(+ a 3))Var a becomes defined in the namespace when you evaluate these statements manually, rather than when you run the system, as it is embedded in a comment. Traditional example based tests, using e.g. clojure.test, are normally defined as functions, rather than as the result of interactive fiddling. Interactive fiddling and structured functions does not yield the same code structure and it is a bit of a hassle to restructure. Larger tests, involving more than individual units, do usually get incomprehensible while defined as single functions, which makes scripts more preferable.
It's also likely that you use comment expressions to do some administrative tasks, like poking in a database or similar, that you probably don't want automated, but keep as interactive snippets, close to related code.
Testify automate evaluation of comment expressions, named test-comment rather than comment. The test-comment macro is equal to the traditional comment macro, as both simply ignore its body. As soon as you have a comment expression which you want to evaluate automatically, perhaps as a test, you simply rename the comment to test-comment.
(ns project.testcase
(:require [testify :refer [test-comment eval-in-ns]]))
;; Test comments are just like comments, macros that ignore body
(test-comment
(def a 2)
(+ a 3))
(comment
;; space for more experimental and administrative tasks,
;; like e.g. evaluating test-comments
(eval-in-ns 'project.testcase))You evaluate content of top level test-comment expressions by supplying its namespace to one of the three functions eval-as-use, eval-all or eval-in-ns, that recognize the test-comment.
Note that only the content of top level test-comments in the source file will be evaluated. Nested test-comments will just be like ordinary comments, ignored. Without deeply nested surprises.
Other parts of the source file will be considered, slightly different depending on evaluation method, before evaluating test-comments. The test-comments are thereafter evaluated from top to bottom as they appear.
Note that it is the source code that is being evaluated, hence the source code has to be available for the classloader. Only well known source code should be evaluated as the Clojure reader is not designed for reading unknown data.
Every step and its result will be printed to *out*, like:
(clojure.core/in-ns 'project.testcase)
=> #namespace[project.testcase]
(def a 2)
=> #'project.testcase/a
(+ a 3)
=> 5
Each form is a pretty printed data structure, rather than how it appears in code.
There are different evaluation functions, eval-in-ns, eval-as-use and eval-all, having slightly different behavior:
eval-in-ns evaluates the content of the test-comments in its already existing namespace. This is pretty much the same as evaluating step by step manually as usually done with comments. But this is not always great for automation as the namespace remains, possibly altered.
eval-as-use evaluates content of each test-comment in a new temporary namespace and refers to the current namespace as by use, as depicted below. All public functions are available. The temporary namespace is deleted after each test-comment
eval-all evaluates all forms in the namespace in another temporary namespace. All vars are available, including private, except that they belong to the new temporary namespace. The whole temporary namespace is evaluated before and removed after, each test-comment is evaluated. The test-comment is ignored, as a comment, during initial evaluation.
Var a, in examples above, is not present in namespace project.testcase, when using eval-as-use or eval-all as it is placed in the temporary namespace
Any exception thrown will stop the process. All remaining test-comments will be ignored when an exception is thrown.
A test-case can easily use clojure.test/is to verify facts along the way. The above eval- functions can be evaluated within a deftest.
(ns project.testcase
(:require [testify :refer [test-comment eval-as-use]]
[clojure.test :refer [deftest is]]))
(test-comment
(def a 2)
(+ a 3)
(is (= 5 *1)))
;; A unit test is better evaluated with eval-as-use
;; since it uses a temporary namespace to prevent
;; altering the target. (def a 2) above is placed
;; in an anonymous temporary namespace.
(deftest test-the-test
(eval-as-use 'project.testcase))Automated evaluation and their result is printed to *out*, including preparations like evaluating namespace. It should be easy to understand automated evaluation by reading *out*. Note temporary namespace project.testcase-9379:
(clojure.core/in-ns 'project.testcase-9379)
=> #namespace[project.testcase-9379]
(clojure.core/use 'clojure.core)
=> nil
(clojure.core/require
'[testify :refer [test-comment eval-as-use]]
'[clojure.test :refer [deftest is]])
=> nil
(clojure.core/use 'project.testcase)
=> nil
(def a 2)
=> #'project.testcase-9379/a
(+ a 3)
=> 5
(is (= 5 *1))
=> true
(clojure.core/remove-ns 'project.testcase-9379)
=> #namespace[project.testcase-9379]
The eval-as-use and eval-all alternatives use an isolated classloader, discarded after the evaluation run. Testify expects source files with a leading ns form, which translates to an in-ns, followed by individual requirements. The resulting namespace is not considered a loaded lib by Clojure.
It's possible to use other, home grown, comments with testify:
(ns project.tests
(:require [testify :refer [eval-as-usen]]
[clojure.test :refer [deftest is]]))
;; test-comment is, just like comment, a macro that
;; ignores its body. It's easy to create your own.
(defmacro unit-test [& _])
;; and perhaps have a more meaningful name, like unit-test:
(unit-test
(def a 2)
(+ a 3)
(is (= 5 *1)))
;; Supply an optional parameter to pick the "comment macro"
;; you want to evaluate:
(deftest test-the-test
(eval-as-use 'project.tests #'unit-test))Additional vars can categorize comments further.
The eval- functions takes an optional either var, as seen above, or map of options. The var is shortcut for a map containing the key :test-var with the option as value. Following options are available:
:test-var is a var of the macro used as test-comment. Default value is #'testify/test-comment. It can be changed to make selective evaluation runs in the same source file.
Note that eval-all will evaluate the whole file representing the namespace into a new anonymous namespace. If the optional test-comment macro is defined here, it will most likely not match when defined in the test-var option. Just put additional test-comment definitions in another namespace when using eval-all.
:new-classloader? is a boolean for whether each test-comment should be evaluated in a new class-loader, so that locally defined types are omitted after each test comment. This is set for eval-as-use and eval-all. :new-classpath? is an alternative, missleading, name for this option.
:keep-ns-on-exception? is set to prevent removing any temporary namespace on a thrown exception. Can be used to investigate circumstances.
:use-target? tells whether the target namespace should be referred to as use. Set by default in eval-as-use.
:unique-ns an optional function translating a namespace symbol to a symbol used for temporary namespace. Can be used to override default, as a predictive alternative.
Testify is heavily influenced by Cognitects Transcriptor library, which evaluates repl files in a similar fashion. Repl files are though not regular clojure source files, that your favorite dev environment already understands.
Transcriptor https://github.com/cognitect-labs/transcriptor is surely still an alternative tool, even though it evaluates repl files rather than comments.
RCF https://github.com/hyperfiddle/rcf is another tool that automates evaluation in the REPL. It is oriented around sending the whole comment expression, called tests, to the REPL. Under the hood it is driven by a more advanced macro that switches in behavior depending on state. It expands to either wrapping content into a do or nothing at all. Testify will not change the behavior of macros. RCF can also translate content of its macros to clojure.test tests.
Questions, ideas or happy feelings? Please ping me at Clojurians: @stefanvstein
Eclipse Public License, same as Clojure. https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html