PHP in Action

Trouble is, it's not a DSL, and it's not English. It's still PHP code, and when I look at what I expect to be code, I will parse it as code. It might be helpful for a tester, but a programmer would stil see it as a set of method and function calls.

$this->assertThat(
$form->hasSelect(
withName('statusConfirm')
)->hasValues(),
array('Yes','No')
);

This format actually makes it more dificult for me to count the references - something I do automatically when reading code.

If you want a DSL, then you might as well make it a full blown DSL, like SQL:

$this->assert( 'FORM HAS SELECT ( WITHNAME "statusConfirm" AND HASVALUES ("Yes", "No") )' );

The problem with the chaining implementation is that it does not know, when it is the last on the chain and when to check the assertion. You need a method like ->assert() or ->end() or ->check() or whatever it is named, thus it is required to add an additional call at the end of the assertion, making it less fun to read.

Also, considering that most methods have simplified names where you can interpret a lot of stuff into them you may end up having a unit-test class with several hundred methods (noone can remember that). Using assertTrue and assertFalse is much easier than having ->hasValue(false) ->isFalse ->isNotTrue ->isNotFalse ->isTrue ->isTheValueIWant(false) just to create easier "sentences".

If you really want something that reads more like english... try python!

I must say I'm fascinated by the number of objections I'm getting here. Let me answer some of them.

@Ilja: Of course you could have a full-blown DSL, but it's more work to implement.

@zilenCe: I haven't designed this in detail, and I might want to do it differently after thinking more about it. Still, I don't think you would have to add an extra call at the end. The chain would involve the object generated by the assertThat() call. $this, the test case, would receive the final result and be able to check the assertion.

You say that assertTrue and assertFalse are easy to use. Of course, but they are unable to express anything complex. Which is what I'm trying to do here.

Thanks for raising this subject.

I see your point, but I have so many objections to so-called "fluent" interfaces that I never know where to start. Please take none of this personally!

i) I already know PHP and - for example - xUnit, why do I have to learn your own hand-rolled language simply to maintain your code?

ii) "Fluent" interfaces _never_ read like fluent English. They, without exception, read like a clumsy, uncomfortable hybrid of English and whatever programming language is in use.

iii) If the interface did manage to read like English...how does that help the millions of people that are fluent in, say, PHP but don't think in English in the first place?

@Simon: That's OK, I don't take it personally. Objections help me think.

i) It's an extra API on top of the existing test framework's. You don't have to use it if you don't want to, but the intention is to get more compact and less cryptic code.

ii) Perhaps it looks clumsy. My criterion is that it takes less time to understand the code if you haven't read it in the last month and need to update it.

iii) Any understandable API needs to use words in some natural language. English is just the usual choice. I'm just discussing the principles. If you want to use words from German, Esperanto or Buganda, the principles are the same.

The problem with your second "sentence" is that it denatures the meaning of entities.

A function that has the name "hasValues" has an expected behaviour. It will tell me if the calling structure or object will contain the values in parameters. Whereas, a function called "andValues" means absolutely nothing.

So yes, you get a pretty english sentence, but you lose the meaning of what you're doing. So in the context of your little sentence, it works fine, but in the greater context, in the next lines of code, a function "andValues" has "little value". :)

brem

Good point. If I wanted to implement it this way (I'm not sure, not having considered it sufficiently) andValues() would probably be a piece of syntactic sugar, implemented as an alias for hasValues(). The Ruby mock framework Flexmock has something similar: "returns is an alias for and_return".

This api is not easy in use. The code is very long, more complicated things are hard to describe.