You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It would be nice to have some custom checks that simplify assertions made on sequences.
(check-contains? seq expected ...) For each expected, assert that seq contains at least one value that is equal to the expected. Maybe include a keyword argument to enforce order.
(check-contains-exactly? seq expected ...) Like check-contains?, but if seq has any extra values then the assertion is failed.
(check-has-size? seq expected) Same as (check-equal? (sequence-length seq) expected).
This would also help teach people that the "actual" value goes on the left, and the "expected" value(s) go on the right.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It would be nice to have some custom checks that simplify assertions made on sequences.
(check-contains? seq expected ...)
For eachexpected
, assert thatseq
contains at least one value that is equal to theexpected
. Maybe include a keyword argument to enforce order.(check-contains-exactly? seq expected ...)
Likecheck-contains?
, but ifseq
has any extra values then the assertion is failed.(check-has-size? seq expected)
Same as(check-equal? (sequence-length seq) expected)
.This would also help teach people that the "actual" value goes on the left, and the "expected" value(s) go on the right.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: