[Cuis-dev] Enhancement proposal: Fail test when no assertion ran

[Andres Valloud]

Speaking of this, observe the multitude of occurrences of

	on: Error do: [...]

in the currently shipping code, and even in tests.  This is almost 
certainly bad because said exceptions could have had a default handler 
to take care of the error in question.  By doing on: Error do: [...], 
the code says "if any error at all occurs, then I know better than the 
default handler of said error".  Handling errors by hand negates the 
point of having default handlers and misses the point.  In the vast 
majority of cases, that should be

	on: UnhandledException do: [...]

instead.  But that is what SUnit is (ought to be) doing for you, so you 
do not have to type it yourself.

On 4/3/24 3:51 PM, Andres Valloud via Cuis-dev wrote:
> If we go by "agreement" of others, well that's the logical fallacy of 
> appeal to authority or majority.  Most already think we shouldn't be 
> using Smalltalk, too.  There's a lot more to it than that.
> 
> The real problems of the world are more related to nobody having the 
> time to properly review code because there's too much of it, and the 
> fact that nobody needs a professional license to write software.  More 
> boilerplate is not going to help, and that has consequences.  For 
> example, this
> 
> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/01/xz_backdoor_open_source/
> 
> happened by packaging malicious code in tests.
> 
> Why can't we agree that our testing framework declares that unhandled 
> exceptions are always bad, because they are?  Why should anyone have to 
> write code to say that again?
> 
> On 4/3/24 10:34 AM, Hernán Wilkinson wrote:
>> That is a good point, but there is an "agreement" around the automatic 
>> testing people on making explicit that you are not expecting an 
>> exception, differentiate that test from the ones that do not have 
>> assertions by mistake.
>> I do believe it is better to do it that way, it makes explicit what 
>> you are expecting and if the framework testing changes (like in this 
>> case is suggested), the test will continue working.
>> I think that explicit is better than implicit in many areas, 
>> programming languages is one of them; python has that as a rule for 
>> example.
>> I think making explicit that you are not expecting an exception to be 
>> signaled is better than not doing it.
>>
>> Hernan.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 2:22 PM Andres Valloud via Cuis-dev 
>> <cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st <mailto:cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st>> wrote:
>>
>>     No, you can write code in a test method with the expectation that it
>>     will not raise unhandled exceptions, and you do not need 
>> assertions for
>>     that.  Specifically, you do not need to write the silly
>>
>>              shouldnt: [...] raise: UnhandledException
>>
>>     because that's what SUnit is there for.  You do not know a priori 
>> what
>>     the code writer is doing, so the tool should not guess.
>>
>>     On 4/3/24 7:42 AM, Juan Vuletich via Cuis-dev wrote:
>>      > a test without assertions is not a test.
>>     --     Cuis-dev mailing list
>>     Cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st <mailto:Cuis-dev at lists.cuis.st>
>>     https://lists.cuis.st/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev
>>     <https://lists.cuis.st/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> *Hernán Wilkinson
>> Agile Software Development, Teaching & Coaching*
>> *Phone: +54-011*-4893-2057
>> *Twitter: @HernanWilkinson*
>> *site: http://www.10Pines.com <http://www.10pines.com/>*
>> Address: Alem 896, Floor 6, Buenos Aires, Argentina