Re: RfC: WebApps Testing Process

On 4/11/11, James Graham <> wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 01:32 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>> On 4/10/11, James Graham<>  wrote:
>>>> And again, a test that does that is a mistake. Quite obvious.
>>> How would you write a test that a structured clone correctly preserves
>>> NaN values?
>> If needed, I would be including to write an
>> `assert_object_equivalence`. In my style, that'd be more like:
> I don't see that having assert_equals and assert_object_equivalence that
> do similar, but slightly different, things is at all clearer than having
> a single method that has the useful behaviour from both. Apart from the
> NaN case how would you expect these two methods to differ?
Comparing two things for equality means that they're either the same
or they'r not. Object equivalence is for comparing if two objects have
same properties.

1 === 1; // True. Equal.
({} === {}); // False. Equivalent, but not equal

Object assertions are more complicated. FOr object assertions, I have
sometimes needed to check things such as:
hasProperty(object, propName[, val]);
hasAllProperties(object, propertiesObject);
doesNotHaveProperty(object, propName);

Not always, but often what matters is if the actual object has a
specific set of properties; whether or not it has any additional
properties doesn't matter. Though sometimes you want to know if an
object has exactly a set of properties, and no more. That depends on
the usage.

Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 20:16:23 UTC