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

[Greg Weber]

I am confused also, as to both what output you don't like that motivated
chell and what exactly hspec silences :) Suffice to say I am able to get a
small relevant error message on failure with hspec. I am adding the hspec
maintainer to this e-mail- he can answer any of your questions.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:03 AM, John Millikin <jmillikin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 07:52, Greg Weber <greg at gregweber.info> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I'm a bit confused. From what I can tell, HUnit does not output
> *anything* just from running a test -- the result has to be printed
> manually. What are you silencing?
>
> > 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20110811/1d606324/attachment.htm>