RE: [Junit-devel] why not assertEquals(actual, expected)?

[Kent B. <ke...@th...>]

Line a bunch of assertEquals in a row. Having expected first makes them
read better. And yes, it's too late to change it.

Kent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jun...@li... 
> [mailto:jun...@li...] On Behalf Of 
> Janto Dreijer
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:42 PM
> To: jun...@li...
> Subject: [Junit-devel] why not assertEquals(actual, expected)?
> 
> 
>  
> Is there a reason why the order of the parameters to 
> assertEquals are (expected, actual) and not (actual, expected)?
> 
> Say f() returns the string "invalid data".
> Then calling
>     assertEquals( f(), "correct ouput" )
> will print:
>     expected "invalid data" but found "correct output"
>     (or something like that)
> 
> Now maybe it's just me, but the result doesn't look very 
> natural. Neither does the order of the parameters if I were 
> to swap them around:
>     assertEquals( "correct ouput", f() )
> It doesn't have the kind of dataflow I think in: left to right.
> 
> I hope you guys don't think it's too late to change the works :-)
> 
> I'm relatively new to jUnit, so if there's something obvious 
> I'm missing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 
> 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com 
> _______________________________________________
> Junit-devel mailing list
> Jun...@li... 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/j> unit-devel
>