Question

如果您编写类似

的测试类

class MyTest < Test::Unit::TestCase 
  def setup 
  end

  def test_1 
    flunk
  end

  def test_1 
    assert true
  end
end

忽略第一个test_1。虽然它看起来像一个愚蠢的错误，但它可能发生在复制和粘贴编程中。除了运行

grep test test_me.rb | wc

并将其与测试单元所说的运行，或使用rcov或heckle或使用-w运行的测试数量进行比较，您如何检测此类问题？

另外，有没有办法指定不应该覆盖测试方法？

编辑：正在测试的方法有一个参数，其中包含6个左右的可能值，测试人员希望测试每个方案。这就是使用复制和粘贴编程的原因。我可以设想的唯一替代方案是一个六元素的参数和期望值数组。

Answer 1

您可以利用Ruby的method_added，只要将方法添加到类中，就会调用它。您应该可以将某些内容添加到您包含的模块中，但这是在测试类中执行此操作的简单示例。

class MyTest < Test::Unit::TestCase

  @@my_tests = []

  def self.method_added(sym)
    raise "#{sym} already defined!" if @@my_tests.include? sym
    @my_tests << sym
  end

  def test_foo_1
  end

  def test_foo_2
  end

  def test_foo_1
  end
end

Answer 2

编辑：正在测试的方法有一个参数有6左右可能值，测试人员想测试每个场景。这就是为什么复制和使用了粘贴编程。

在这种情况下，我这样做：

def test_foo
  test_cases = [
   {:param => 1, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 2, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 3, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 4, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 5, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 6, :expected => 'whatever is expected'}
  ]

  for test_case in test_cases
    do_the_test(test_case)
  end
end

def do_the_test(test_case)
  # test code here
end

这完全避免了复制和粘贴，如上所述，这是不好的

唯一的替代方案我可以设想这样一个场景是一个六元素阵列参数和期望值。

完全！

Answer 3

关于HermanD的答案，因为这是Ruby！，你也可以直接在课堂上这样做来创建独特的测试方法：

class MyObjectTest < Test::Unit::TestCase
  [
   {:param => 1, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 2, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 3, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 4, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 5, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 6, :expected => 'whatever is expected'}
  ].each do |test_case|
    define_method :"test_using_#{test_case[:param]}_should_return_#{params[:expected].underscore}" do
      assert_equal test_case[:expected], MyObject.new.do_something_with(test_case[:param])
    end
  end
end

使用Rspec（或Shoulda）的句子（如语言）感觉更自然：

describe MyObject do
   [
   {:param => 1, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 2, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 3, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 4, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 5, :expected => 'whatever is expected'},
   {:param => 6, :expected => 'whatever is expected'}
  ].each do |test_case|
    it "should return #{test_case[:expected]} when using #{test_case[:param]}" do
      MyObject.new.do_something_with(test_case[:param]).should == test_case[:expected]
    end
  end
end

Answer 4

如果你给你的测试提供正确的描述性名称，这真的是一个问题吗？以下是我最近项目中一些测试方法名称的示例：

test_should_not_do_html_escaping_for_administrators
test_should_not_be_able_to_create_project_with_company_user_doesnt_own
test_should_be_able_to_edit_own_projects
test_should_not_be_able_to_edit_others_projects

如果您的测试名称足够短，以至于您可以轻松覆盖或复制它们，那么您可能无法描述每个实际测试的内容。

Answer 5

避免复制粘贴编程。如果必须，重新绑定关键快捷键。

Answer 6

测试单元的gem版本能够检测2.0.7的测试重新定义。

检测重写ruby测试方法

6 个答案: