Karoy Lorentey 7ce8544610 [StdlibUnittest] expectEqual: Use less opinionated argument names ...

Based on its argument names and messages, `expectEqual` and friends expects the expected value of the calculation being tested to be provided as its first argument, and the actual value as the second:

```
expectEqual(4, 2 + 2)
```

This does not always match actual use -- folks like myself find the opposite ordering far more natural:

```
expectEqual(2 + 2, 4)
```

`expectEqual` currently uses the `expected`/`actual` terminology in its failure messages, causing confusion and needless suffering.

Change `expectEqual`'s declaration and error messages to use a naming scheme that does not assume specific roles for the two arguments. (Namely, use `first`/`second` instead of `expected`/`actual`.)

An alternative way to solve this would be to use argument labels, as in `expectEqual(expected: 4, actual: 2 + 2)`, or to introduce some sort of expression builder scheme such as `expect(2 + 2).toEqual(2)`. These seem needlessly fussy and overly clever, respectively.

2022-02-16 14:00:54 -08:00

19 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History

View Raw