[Haskell-cafe] ANNOUNCE: Chell: A quiet test runner (low-output alternative to test-framework)

[Greg Weber]

It silences HUnit's output, but will tell you what happens when there is a
failure- which I think is what you want. There are a few available output
formatters if you don't like the default output, or you can write your own
output formatter.

BDD is really a red herring. Instead of using function names to name tests
you can use strings, which are inherently more descriptive. In chell you
already have `assertions "numbers"`, in hspec it would be `it "numbers"`.
The preferred style it to remove `test test_Numbers and the test_Numbers
definition` which are redundant in this case, and instead place that inline
where you define the suite, although that is optional.
So I really can't tell any difference betwee "BDD"  and "pass/fail
assertions". You still just use assertions in hspec.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:36 AM, John Millikin <jmillikin at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have, but it's not quite what I'm looking for:
>
> - I don't want to silence HUnit's output, I just don't want anything
> to show on the console when a test *passes*. Showing output on a
> failure is good.
>
> - I'm not interested in BDD. Not to say it's not useful, but it
> doesn't match my style of testing (which uses mostly pass/fail
> assertions and properties).
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 07:18, Greg Weber <greg at gregweber.info> wrote:
> > Hi John,
> > I am wondering if you have seen the hspec package? [1] It seems to solve
> all
> > the problems you are with chell, including that it silences Hunit output.
> We
> > are using it for all the Yesod tests now.
> > Thanks,
> > Greg Weber
> > [1]:
> http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/hspec/0.6.1/doc/html/Test-Hspec.html
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20110811/2aa0e988/attachment.htm>