39 ms·
That's why the first check is a hard assertion (returning on error), and the others are soft (continuing on error). If the list is empty, then the log will con
by jmillikin 4y ago
That's why the first check is a hard assertion (returning on error), and the others are soft (continuing on error).
If the list is empty, then the log will contain one error about the length being zero. If the list has one item but it has the wrong properties, the log will contain two errors.
- masklinn 4y ago> That's why the first check is a hard assertion (returning on error), and the others are soft (continuing on error). See that's so completely unclear I utterly missed that there were two different calls there. Doesn't exactly help that the functions are the exact same length, and significantly overlap in naming.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoThat's just a matter of familiarity, though. And if you make a mistake, you'll discover it the first time the test fails - either you'll see too little output, or you'll see the test throw an exception or crash.
- HereBeBeasties 4y agoI bet if it were in monospace and you were reading code in context rather than on HN you'd have noticed. That said, NUnit has much better syntax for this, where you put parallel/multiple assertions like this in an explicit block together: https://docs.nunit.org/articles/nunit/writing-tests/assertions/multiple-asserts.html https://docs.nunit.org/articles/nunit/writing-tests/assertio... Much less boilerplate duplication in the actual test framework, too.
- masklinn 4y ago> I bet if it were in monospace It is. > and you were reading code in context rather than on HN you'd have noticed. (X) doubt