I won't argue that a great case has been made :) But I see inherent value in consistency (both in the implementations and in the user-exposed API) for assertions across our in-tree test suites (or at least, across mochitest-based harnesses and xpcshell). Do you disagree?
Gavin On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2014-06-03, 1:49 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: >> >>> I think what xpcshell has now and what testharness says and what's being >>> proposed (with the "Assert." prefix) are unreasonably long/verbose. >>> >> >> I suspected this is where we'd end up :) "Reasonability" is just as >> subjective as aesthetics. >> >> I really have a hard time accepting at face value the argument >> "Assert.notEqual (or other shorter variants) is unreasonably long to >> type/paste repeatedly". Hacking on Gecko you have to frequently type >> much longer things :) I can certainly buy "it's longer than what I'm >> used to", and even "incremental effort is required" - just not >> "incremental effort is required and that effort is non-negligible >> given other factors" :) >> > > Sure. But the point is, what does the proposed change buy us to make this > "subjective" burden be worth it? That is what's not clear in this thread > so far. At the lack of a good reason to change things, maintaining the > status quo should be the default. ;) > > > Cheers, > Ehsan > > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
