Stop requiring only one assertion per unit test: Multiple assertions are fine

Re:Stop requiring only one assertion per unit test: Multiple... by magic_hamster on Saturday November 05, 2022 @10:59AM (#33482085)

Even if the framework is fine, you can see something like an elaborate if-else tree, or even a try-catch block, and after it's all done, there's a condition check with `fail()`. So the point of failure could be manually detached from the actual point of failure.

Granted, this is not the way to do things. But it happens anyway.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stop requiring only one assertion per unit test: Multiple... by mynameisvlad on Saturday November 05, 2022 @11:51AM (#33482610)

I mean in your example it’s someone choosing not to use asserts. Which is a problem, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not the problem being talked about here.

The comment thread is about “Assertion Roulette” — having so many assertions you don’t know which went off. Which really seems like a test framework issue more than a test issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]