Add 'should' syntax

[Google Code Exporter]

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

Instead of:

expect.that(value).equalTo(expected);

Some suggestions:

expect.that(value).shouldBeEqualTo(expected);
expect.that(value).shouldNotBeEqualTo(expected)

Original issue reported on code.google.com by [e-mail] on 4 Oct 2007 at 4:40

[Google Code Exporter]

I think we will soon be walking a fine line between expressiveness and sheer
verbosity.  I totally agree that in this case we should have 'should'.  But 
something
we will need to consider.  I suppose there is no reason why we can have both the
'should' and non-'should' versions.

Original comment by [e-mail] on 4 Oct 2007 at 9:13

[Google Code Exporter]

I'm keen to see the expectations become more expressive. However, I don't 
believe
that 'should' is quite right. For example:
'I expect that it *should* rain today' doesn't sound right.
'I expect that it will rain today' is what we'd say.

So I suggest:
expect.that(result).willEqual(expected);
expect.that(result).willNotEqual(unexpected);

This is both concise and expressive.

I was just writing this and realised this is close to the pattern JMock uses! 
So it
must be right :-)

I'd also suggest that we don't make multiple versions at this stage. It will be
easier to keep it simple now, changing everything over to one 'right' way 
(whatever
we agree that is), and introduce alternatives later if we still feel there is a 
need.

Original comment by [e-mail] on 20 Nov 2007 at 5:20

[Google Code Exporter]

Yeah I agree.  On reflection 'should' should not be added... I mean will not be
added.... I mean I expect that should will not be added.

or in code...

i.expect.that('should').willNotBe(added);

or something like that...  ;-)

Original comment by [e-mail] on 20 Nov 2007 at 10:32

[Google Code Exporter]

I've actually started doing this. I think there's now isEqualTo(), etc. There's 
no
problem adding more syntax, they all delegate to the "real" method anyway. For
example isOfType(), ofType(), instanceOf(), etc. all delegate to isInstanceOf().

As we're using Instinct, and I want a more expressive way, I've been adding 
these.
SOme other stuff we should do is to rationalise the checkers, so for example, 
arrays,
collections and strings all have size type checks (isOfSize(), hasSize(),
hasLength(), atLeastOfSize(), etc.).

Original comment by [e-mail] on 21 Nov 2007 at 1:57

[Google Code Exporter]

Rationalised the expectation checkers. These changes are in 0.1.6. Didn't add 
the
should syntax though.

Original comment by [e-mail] on 18 Dec 2007 at 12:32

• Changed state: Fixed