4 ms·
Well having just written a unit test framework[1](because we needed one that cross compiled to ScalaJS and couldn't use utest for reasons relating to difficulty
by benjaminjackman 12y ago
Well having just written a unit test framework[1](because we needed one that cross compiled to ScalaJS and couldn't use utest for reasons relating to difficulty of getting it to produce reasonable output for all our legacy tests) I side stepped the issue by using a FunSuite style. I prefer using a series of assertions to simply returning true or false because often times you want to put multiple assertions in the same test.
However the unit test case alone is a pretty valid one. I am all for making it a compiler flag (opt-in or opt-out). I still haven't been given a single real problem with procedure syntax other than "it's different" and because "it's different" it therefore confuses new users and increases the complexity of the language. I don't think that follows logically and in my experience empirically. For the programmers I have introduced to Scala, or that I have talked to who use it none of them have gotten caught up by procedure syntax. This includes traders taking the Scala course that have never programmed before in their life.
The color/formatting is a good idea, that should just be done already. However given that the intellij guys still don't give an option[2] to color member variables defined in a constructor differently than ones defined in a method I'm not hopeful about that.
1: https://github.com/cgta/otest https://github.com/cgta/otest
2: https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/SCL-2811 https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/SCL-2811
- frowaway001 12y agoThanks for your helpful information! I think as soon as scala.meta is released, it will be vastly simpler to write your own refactorings (like converting tests using test library X to test library Y). From what I have seen on Parleys, the person behind macros even show-cased such refactorings in a talk at the last ScalaDays.