Sharing metatest logic between unittest and scheduled_test

pkg/unittest/test/async_setup_teardown_test.dart

Index: pkg/unittest/test/async_setup_teardown_test.dart
diff --git a/pkg/unittest/test/async_setup_teardown_test.dart b/pkg/unittest/test/async_setup_teardown_test.dart
index 56e7c1264b4d6ab55139be5557a133e888ace8b6..8cc4c7bf8bd64dc6ae33271274d56102f203fb32 100644
--- a/pkg/unittest/test/async_setup_teardown_test.dart
+++ b/pkg/unittest/test/async_setup_teardown_test.dart
@@ -2,19 +2,20 @@
 // 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.
 
-library unittestTest;
+library unittest.async_setup_teardown;
 
 import 'dart:async';
-import 'dart:isolate';
 
 import 'package:unittest/unittest.dart';
 
-part 'utils.dart';
+import 'package:metatest/metatest.dart';
 
-var testName = 'async setup teardown test';
+void main() => initTests(_test);
 
-var testFunction = (_) {
-  group('good setup/good teardown', () {
+void _test(message) {
+  initMetatest(message);
+
+  expectSingleTest('good setup/good teardown', 'pass', '', () {

[nweiz, 2014/09/10 21:04:43]

This interface is really hard to read. Why is the status a string? Why not a
boolean or, if it can have more than two values, an enum?

I'd also make the status and description named parameters. Having three unnamed
strings in a row is really confusing.

[kevmoo, 2014/09/17 21:16:29]

I eliminated expectSingleTest. Fewer methods == better

     setUp(() {
       return new Future.value(0);
     });
@@ -23,7 +24,12 @@ var testFunction = (_) {
     });
     test('foo1', () {});
   });
-  group('good setup/bad teardown', () {
+
+  expectSingleTest(
+      'good setup/bad teardown',
+      'error',
+      'Teardown failed: Caught Failed to complete tearDown',
+      () {
     setUp(() {
       return new Future.value(0);
     });
@@ -32,7 +38,12 @@ var testFunction = (_) {
     });
     test('foo2', () {});
   });
-  group('bad setup/good teardown', () {
+
+  expectSingleTest(
+      'bad setup/good teardown',
+      'error',
+      'Setup failed: Caught Failed to complete setUp',
+      () {
     setUp(() {
       return new Future.error("Failed to complete setUp");
     });
@@ -41,7 +52,12 @@ var testFunction = (_) {
     });
     test('foo3', () {});
   });
-  group('bad setup/bad teardown', () {
+
+  expectSingleTest(
+      'bad setup/bad teardown',
+      'error',
+      'Setup failed: Caught Failed to complete setUp',
+      () {
     setUp(() {
       return new Future.error("Failed to complete setUp");
     });
@@ -50,17 +66,4 @@ var testFunction = (_) {
     });
     test('foo4', () {});
   });
-  // The next test is just to make sure we make steady progress
-  // through the tests.
-  test('post groups', () {});
-};
-
-final expected = buildStatusString(2, 0, 3,
-    'good setup/good teardown foo1::'
-    'good setup/bad teardown foo2:'
-    'Teardown failed: Caught Failed to complete tearDown:'
-    'bad setup/good teardown foo3:'
-    'Setup failed: Caught Failed to complete setUp:'
-    'bad setup/bad teardown foo4:'
-    'Setup failed: Caught Failed to complete setUp:'
-    'post groups');
+}