- From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:15:55 -0700
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
On 4/11/11, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 01:32 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>> On 4/10/11, James Graham<jgraham@opera.com> 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.
--
Garrett
Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 20:16:23 UTC