Re: BDD testing framework without dependencies

[Thijs Schreijer <thijs@...>]

> On 23 Aug 2016, at 08:11, Sean Conner <sean@conman.org> wrote:
> 
> It was thus said that the Great steve donovan once stated:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Daurnimator <quae@daurnimator.com> wrote:
>>> It's not that you assume it's bug free; but that you hope your bugs
>>> and their bugs are uncorrelated.
>> 
>> Ah, good point. An argument for a completely brain dead yet convenient
>> enough test framework.
> 
>  And still I ask---what does a framework buy you that assert() doesn't? 
> Other than (in my opinion) excessive overhead on a possibly buggy framework?
> 
>  -spc (Still puzzled by all this ... )
> 
> 

lol

Why do you even use Lua, it’s a source of bugs, write your own compiler/interpreter/language, is probably gonna be way better and have lesser bugs.

care about writing your deep tables comparison assertions? roll your own! how about multiple tests using the same setup en teardown. Making sure each test starts as clean as possible. Why re-use, write your own bug free implementations of course!

sorry for the tone in the above, but the thread above is just hilarious.

Those frameworks have been used by many before you and will have far lesser bugs than your own code (no matter how good you code), they probably power thousands of CI runs every day. Yet, you don’t trust them. They’re not bug free, but they’re better anyway.

Only in the simplest of cases one should use the basic asserts, anything beyond that would benefit from a framework (or like the OP, when you have resource constraints maybe)

Sorry Sean, usually read your posts with interest, but this time you made me laugh.

Thijs