toContain matcher for Map #42
Conversation
| message += failingValues.map(p => s"${p._1} -> ${p._2} but found ${p._1} -> ${p._3}").mkString("\n ") | ||
| expect.fail(message) | ||
|
|
||
| private def describeActualWithContext(actual: Map[K, V]): String = "Map(...)" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not much context here... ;-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nope =)
What is a good context for a Map? Map(of 23 entries),Map[K, V] or to print a few keys (similar to Seq, and using the same cutoff)?
| "when negated": | ||
| "error is described properly also for multiple elements" in: | ||
| runExpectation( | ||
| expect(Map("one" -> 1, "two" -> 2)).not.toContainAllOf("one" -> 1, "two" -> 2), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to have a test for the negation of toContainAllOf where:
- Actual is one->1, two->2
- Expected is one->1, three->3
In the positive case, this should be a failure, since actual doesn't contain three->3. Thus the negative case should be a success, I think. Does it work like that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Disagree. To not contain all of, should fail if >0 pairs are present in the Map.
Still, adding such a test case would be good, just with a slightly different result than what you propose ;-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, new year, new thoughts =)
I revisited this and I agree with your view and will add the following tests:
"when partially matching":
"error is described properly" in:
runExpectation(
expect(Map("one" -> 1, "two" -> 2)).toContainAllOf("one" -> 1, "three" -> 3),
"""Expected Map(...) to contain:
| "three" -> 3""".stripMargin)
"and negating":
"should pass since Map is not missing both pairs" in:
expect(Map("one" -> 1, "two" -> 2)).not.toContainAllOf("one" -> 1, "three" -> 3)
See PR #42 for additional rationale
Initial work to support
.toContainand.toContainAllOffor Map.@provegard, what do you think of the matcher style, and the output?
Still needed (although in separate PR's):
Support for mutable MapPart of #36