You can support this project by donating at:

Or see the list of project sponsors.

should-testtest-framework

Documentation	😀
Docstrings	😀
Tests	😀
Examples	😀
RepositoryActivity	😀
CI	🥺

This is yet another testing framework written by @vseloved. It is interesting because provides a protocol to define new kinds of assertions.

Here is a simple example:

POFTHEDAY> (defun plus-100 (x)
             (+ x x))

POFTHEDAY> (st:deftest test-plus-100 ()
             (st:should be = 200 (plus-100 100))
             (st:should be = 150 (plus-100 50))
             (st:should signal 'error (plus-100 "blah")))

;; Now let's run the tests in the current package:
POFTHEDAY> (st:test)

Test TEST-PLUS-100: 
(PLUS-100 50) FAIL
expect: 150
actual: 100
(PLUS-100 blah) FAIL
expect: (QUOTE ERROR)
actual: #<TYPE-ERROR expected-type: NUMBER datum: "blah">
  FAILED

NIL
#<HASH-TABLE :TEST EQL :COUNT 1 {1006D9D273}>
#<HASH-TABLE :TEST EQL :COUNT 0 {1006D9D553}>

;; Second value is a hash with thrown exceptions:
POFTHEDAY> (alexandria:hash-table-alist #v116:1)
((TEST-PLUS-100 #<TYPE-ERROR expected-type: NUMBER datum: "blah"> (100)))

Now let's try to extend this library with a custom check which will assert that float value more or less than expected no more than specified delta:

;; This method defines a new assertion:
POFTHEDAY> (defmethod st:should-check ((key (eql :be-within)) delta fn &rest expected)
             (assert (= (length expected)
                        1))
             (let* ((result (funcall fn))
                    (real-difference (abs (- result
                                              (first expected)))))
               (or (<= real-difference delta)
                   (values nil
                           (list :result result
                                 :delta real-difference)))))

;; This is the fake function we are going to test:
POFTHEDAY> (defun kind-of-random ()
             0.323)

POFTHEDAY> (st:deftest test-within ()
             (st:should be-within 0.01 0.35
                        (kind-of-random)))

POFTHEDAY> (st:test)
Test TEST-WITHIN: 
(KIND-OF-RANDOM) FAIL
expect: 0.35
actual: :RESULT 0.323 :DELTA 0.02699998
  FAILED

;; Now we will fix the "error"
POFTHEDAY> (defun kind-of-random ()
             0.345)

POFTHEDAY> (st:test)
Test TEST-WITHIN:   OK

On my taste, it was not convenient to define a test predicate this way, because I didn't have control of assertion syntax. It always should be like "name test expected form".

In my case I have a 0.01 delta in place of the test, which is not semantic at all and form completion in SLY does not help me to understand what does "should" macro expect if the first argument is "be-within".

But this is is relatively young test framework :)