Re: Blog: Four Ways to test Expected Exceptions

Hi Brad,

> I haven't had occasion to use this method of testing 
> exceptions (though to be fair, I can't remember the last time 
> I used *any* method for testing exceptions), but your 
> explanation is clear, and its use seems much clearer and more 
> precise than the previous method.  I'd much rather use the 
> new than the old, but that's true for other assertions, too.

I was dubious about inline checking of exceptions back when
.NET 1.0 and 1.1 were the more used framework versions. Having
to use a separate method and instantiate a delegate for each
test made it just too difficult. But with 2.0 it got easier
and 3.0/3.5 made it easier still. NUnit actually supports 
versions of this Assert/Constraint that work in .NET 1.0 and 1.1,
but I don't think I would use them myself - except for testing
them within NUnit that is.

> After some initial apathy ("skepticism" is really too strong 
> to describe what I felt), I've pretty much started using the 
> constraint methods exclusively over the Assert syntax, 
> sometimes even changing old test code when I need to change 
> what it's testing.  It just makes my code so much easier to 
> read and parse.  One other developer on my team, for whom 
> "skepticism" wasn't strong *enough*, has also switched after 
> really looking at the resulting test code, and output. :)

That's good to hear. The irony is that I was quite skeptical
about such "fluent interfaces" myself but I finally figured that
I had to try it, which meant I had to write it. I'm 
now convinced as well. :-)

Charlie

> Brad
> 
> 
> 




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/