Fork me on GitHub
#testing
<
2015-08-18
>
sdegutis14:08:15

What testing frameworks do you all use?

nberger14:08:31

I basically use clojure.test (and cljs.test) and test.check (sometimes with sugar provided by test.chuck)

nberger14:08:29

Might use expectations too, but try to avoid midje & speclj

sdegutis14:08:27

Why avoid midje/speclj?

nberger15:08:16

I feel they are more complex, and don't give much in return. They do so many things that I don't need most of the time. I can always use a macro to avoid some kind of repetition.

nberger15:08:09

But I like to not have to learn another DSL.

nberger15:08:17

Oh, I also like humane-test-output to improve the output from clojure.test... And also juxt/iota

sdegutis15:08:48

nberger: ah ok

nberger16:08:30

Now I'd also like to know what others are using simple_smile

bensu17:08:38

@nberger: same as you, but without expectations (no particular reason, I'm just content with clojure.test)

nberger17:08:36

@bensu: cool. Well, I'm not actually using expectations, it's just that from what I've seen, it seems less "invasive" than the others, so I could use it, but probably won't simple_smile

nberger17:08:46

I really liked juxt/iota, from @malcolmsparks , it's tasty sugar for clojure.test simple_smile

nberger18:08:50

One nice addition to juxt/iota would be to have a way to add a message on a certain assertion, so when it fails you can distinguish it from the others... it would be transformed to the 3-arity form of clojure.test/is

malcolmsparks21:08:07

ah yes, that would be nice, I'll see about working that in

malcolmsparks21:08:43

it's a bit of a pain right now when a particular triple fails, at least in my emacs I don't see a good indication of the triple that caused the failure

nberger21:08:28

yes, exactly that. I'll think about it too, but doesn't seem easy to add the message without losing the nice triples structure