New expectation functions plus convert old tests to use these.

lib/unittest/collection_matchers.dart

+// Copyright (c) 2012, the Dart project authors.  Please see the AUTHORS file
+// for details. All rights reserved. Use of this source code is governed by a
+// BSD-style license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
+
+// Collection matchers match against a collection. We add this intermediate

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

Make this a doc comment for the class:

/**
 * Collection matchers...
 */

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+// class to give better mismatch error messages than the base Matcher class.
+
+class _CollectionMatcher extends Matcher {
+  IDescription describeMismatch(item, IDescription mismatchDescription) {
+    if (!(item is Collection)) {

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

if (item is !Collection)

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+      return mismatchDescription.
+          appendDescriptionOf(item).
+          append(' not a collection');
+    } else {
+      return super.describeMismatch(item, mismatchDescription);
+    }
+  }
+}
+//-----------------------------------------------------------

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

I don't think we need a comments for structure. Whitespace is usually
sufficient. Here and elsewhere.

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+/**
+ * This returns a matcher that matches empty collections.

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

"This returns" -> "Returns"

Here and elsewhere. What you have isn't wrong, but I think we usually tend to
word things like "Returns..."

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+ */
+IMatcher emptyCollection() => new _EmptyCollection();

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

Make this a variable so you don't need the ():

final emptyCollection = const _EmptyCollection();

then:

expect(foo, emptyCollection);

Also, rename to "isEmpty" or "isEmptyCollection"?

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+
+class _EmptyCollection extends _CollectionMatcher {
+  bool matches(collection) {

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

Annotate this to type Collection?

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

None of the matches() methods are typed, as they are implementations of an
interface method that is untyped.

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/06/01 18:22:22]

That makes sense.

[gram, 2012/06/01 22:21:59]

Done.

+    try {
+      return collection.isEmpty();
+    } catch (var e) {

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

Why are you swallowing exceptions here?

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

The idea is that you can pass anything in, and that part of the matching process
is to make sure that what you passed in was sane. That is why the exception is
caught and returns false.

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/06/01 18:22:22]

Is that helpful to users? If I do:

expect(foo, isEmptyCollection)

and foo throws an exception from isEmpty(), I'd rather see a helpful stack trace
than just a "fail", right?

[gram, 2012/06/01 22:21:59]

I think we're both partly right. I do think that expect should not throws
exceptions unless the expect error handler  is configured as such. So there
should be a try/catch but this is the wrong place; it should be around the call
to matches() in expect(), and that should be treated as a test failure, ideally
with stack information. I'll make that change.

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/06/01 22:29:00]

Perfect. I love it.

+      return false;
+    }
+  }
+
+  IDescription describe(IDescription description) =>
+    description.append('be empty');
+}
+
+//-----------------------------------------------------------
+/**
+ * This returns a matcher that matches collection that contains [obj].

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

"collection" -> "a collection"

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+ */
+IMatcher contains(obj) => new _CollectionContains(obj);
+
+class _CollectionContains extends _CollectionMatcher {
+
+  var _val;

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

"_val" -> "_value"

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+
+  _CollectionContains(this._val);
+
+  bool matches(item) {
+    try {
+      return item.some( (e) => e == _val );

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

Space like:

return item.some((e) => e == _val);

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+    } catch (var e) {
+      return false;
+    }
+  }
+  IDescription describe(IDescription description) =>

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

Maybe a blank line before this one?

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+        description.append('contains ').appendDescriptionOf(_val);
+}
+
+//-----------------------------------------------------------
+/**
+ * This returns a matcher which matches collections in which all elements
+ * match the given [matcher].
+ */
+IMatcher everyElement(matcher) => new _EveryElement(wrapMatcher(matcher));
+
+class _EveryElement extends _CollectionMatcher {
+  Matcher _matcher;
+
+  _EveryElement(Matcher this._matcher);

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

We don't type annotate "this." constructor params since their type is obvious
from the field.

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+
+  bool matches(item) {
+    try {
+      return item.every( (e) => _matcher.matches(e) );

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

No spaces around lambda fn.

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+    } catch (var e) {
+      return false;
+    }
+  }
+  IDescription describe(IDescription description) =>
+      description.append('every element ').
+      appendDescriptionOf(_matcher);
+}
+
+//-----------------------------------------------------------
+/**
+ * This returns a matcher which matches collections in which at least one
+ * element matches the given [matcher].
+ */
+IMatcher someElement(matcher) => new _SomeElement(wrapMatcher(matcher));
+
+class _SomeElement extends _CollectionMatcher {
+  Matcher _matcher;
+
+  _SomeElement(Matcher this._matcher);
+
+  bool matches(item) {
+    try {
+      return item.some( (e) => _matcher.matches(e) );
+    } catch (var e) {
+      return false;
+    }
+  }
+  IDescription describe(IDescription description) =>
+      description.append('some element ').
+      appendDescriptionOf(_matcher);
+}
+
+//-----------------------------------------------------------
+/**
+ * This returns a matcher which matches collections that have the same
+ * length and the same elements as [expected], and in the same order.
+ */
+
+IMatcher orderedEquals(expected) => new _OrderedEquals(new List.from(expected));

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

Why new List.from() here?

Can "expected" be annotated to Iterable?

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

We need at least one of the two to be indexable. I have changed the code so the
item to be tested can be iterable and we don't make a list from it, but the
expected value is still turned into a list.

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/06/01 18:22:22]

Is this comment still accurate? It looks like the code allows iterables for both
(which is good!).

+
+class _OrderedEquals extends Matcher {
+  var _expected;
+
+  _OrderedEquals(this._expected);
+
+  bool matches(item) {
+    try {
+      List actual = new List.from(item);

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

"List" -> "var".

We rarely annotate locals.

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+      if (_expected.length == actual.length) {

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

It would be nice if this worked with any Iterable instead of requiring .length.
Can you do this just manually iterating both in stepwise fashion?

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+        for (int i = 0; i < _expected.length; i++) {
+          if (_expected[i] != actual[i]) {
+            return false;
+          }
+        }
+        return true;
+      }
+    } catch (var e) {
+    }
+    return false;
+  }
+
+  IDescription describe(IDescription description) =>
+      description.append('equals ').
+      appendDescriptionOf(_expected).append(' ordered');
+}
+
+//-----------------------------------------------------------
+/**
+ * This returns a matcher which matches collections that have the same
+ * length and the same elements as [expected], but not necessarily in
+ * the same order.
+ */
+IMatcher unorderedEquals(expected) =>

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

Can this be type annotated?

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+    new _UnorderedEquals(new Set.from(expected));

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

Does this mean all items in expected must be hashable? If so, we should document
that.

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

I rewrote it so that isn't necessary. It is O(n^2) but that may have been the
case before.

+
+class _UnorderedEquals extends Matcher {
+  var _expected;
+
+  _UnorderedEquals(this._expected);
+
+  bool matches(item) {
+    try {
+      Set items = new Set.from(item);

[Bob Nystrom, 2012/05/30 23:23:51]

"Set" -> "var".

[gram, 2012/06/01 17:33:15]

Done.

+      Set missing = new Set.from(_expected);
+      missing.removeAll(items);
+      Set extra = items;
+      extra.removeAll(_expected);
+      return missing.isEmpty() && extra.isEmpty();
+    } catch (var e) {
+      return false;
+    }
+  }
+
+  IDescription describe(IDescription description) =>
+      description.append('equals ').
+      appendDescriptionOf(_expected).append(' unordered');
+}
+