Re: [WikimediaMobile] Great Expectations

I didn't mean to suggest you can't mix and match. The author of that article endorses Specta/Expecta and OCMockito, but AFAIK Expecta matchers still aren't natively supported in OCMockito <https://github.com/jonreid/OCMockito/issues/56>. Whereas OCHamcrest can be used inside OCMockito expressions <https://github.com/jonreid/OCMockito#argument-matchers>. On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Corey Floyd &lt;cfloyd(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: > Looks like Expecta / Specta are able to work with OCMockito pretty well > actually, so that shouldn’t be a concern: > > http://www.annema.me/why-i-prefer-testing-with-specta-expecta-and-ocmockito > > There are even some nice Xcode templates with OCMockito/Specta/Expecta: > https://github.com/mtynior/SpectaXcodeTemplates > > Even though we haven’t written any Swift yet, we should look into those > new libraries as well for completeness. > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Brian Gerstle wrote: > >> The other two new kids on the block are Quick >> <https://github.com/quick/quick> (BDD specs, similar to Specta) and >> Nimble <https://github.com/Quick/Nimble> (expectations). The main >> advantage of these two are Swift & ObjC compatibility (future-proof). >> >> Here's how I see w.r.t. matching frameworks, since IMO BDD stuff is >> orthogonal: >> >> - OCHamcrest >> - pros >> - it integrates *really* nicely w/ OCMockito (same author) >> - we could try to write adapters for Nimble/Expecta >> matchers, but IMO it's tedious >> - also assumes we're using OCMockito too (mocking isn't >> really possible in Swift yet due to the lack of a reflection API) >> - assertion failures are nicer than XCTest >> - cons >> - API is macro-heavy and clunky, but gets teh job done >> - Expecta >> - pros: >> - really nice API, even has crazy "objectification" so you >> don't need to box primitives (i.e. expect(YES).to(beTrue()) just works) >> - has async matchers >> - cons: >> - not compatible w/ any mocking frameworks AFAIK >> - Nimble >> - pros: >> - really nice API, similar to Expecta >> - also has async matchers >> - built with Swift in mind, but maps really well to ObjC >> - cons >> - minor, but doesn't have auto-boxing of primitives like >> Expecta does, but that's not necessary in swift anyway >> - uses bleeding-edge swift language features, so you need >> Xcode 6.3 beta to run it >> >> For now, Id vote for sticking w/ OCHamcrest given that we're using >> OCMockito. There's also OCMock, which I have experience with, which also >> accepts OCHamcrest matchers. >> >> That being said, we can always use Nimble in Swift tests :-) >> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Corey Floyd wrote: >> >>> Hey guys keep forgetting to write this… We added OCHamcrest before we >>> really started formally evaluating 3rd party libs. So wanted to open the >>> discussion now, especially since we have been writing tests in earnest. >>> Also I hadn’t used OCHamcrest before, so wanted to try it out for a bit >>> before discussing. >>> >>> After looking around it looks like Expecta ( >>> https://github.com/specta/expecta) is the other big matcher framework. >>> These 2 articles compare Expecta and OCHamcrest: >>> >>> http://appleprogramming.com/blog/2014/01/18/tdd-with-specta-and-expecta/ >>> http://pivotallabs.com/expectations-in-ios-testing/ >>> >>> Personally, I find the Expecta matchers much more readable to >>> OCHamcrest. >>> >>> This is confirmed when I read our OCHamcrest code. I notice that my >>> eyes have to bounce around a bit to actually understand what is happening. >>> The expectation is nested at the end and sometimes you jam in a description >>> in the middle which makes me stop and look at it for a bit. This is an >>> example in our code: >>> >>> assertThat((a)([self.controller.fetchedIndices >>> containsIndexesInRange:attemptedBatch]), >>> describedAs(@"batch range to be optimistically marked as >>> 'fetched'", >>> isTrue(), nil)); >>> >>> I don’t know if we need to say we can only write tests using one >>> framework or another, but we should probably discus it as a group and then >>> formalize it into a best practice. >>> >>> >>> Related to this conversation is Specta ( >>> https://github.com/specta/specta) which can be used with either >>> Expecta or OCHamcrest but adds some BDD syntax. >>> >>