Comments on: Unit Testing with Erlang's Common Test Framework http://streamhacker.com/2008/11/26/unit-testing-with-erlangs-common-test-framework/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed Weotta be Hacking Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:41:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Richard Carlssonhttp://streamhacker.com/2008/11/26/unit-testing-with-erlangs-common-test-framework/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Richard Carlsson Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:57:24 +0000 http://streamhacker.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-7 If you have any example of how the EUnit parse transform somehow interferes with your code, please mail it to me. That should not happen.As for macros vs pattern matching: yes, you don't have to use them (not even in EUnit), but the assertion macros give you much more detailed error information than a plain old badmatch does. They add convenience while avoiding run-time dependencies on the EUnit library code. (Furthermore, Common Test also uses macros, in particular for marking line numbers, and that is worse: it updates the process dictionary with an entry for the latest marked line, hence disturbing the process under test.)/Richard If you have any example of how the EUnit parse transform somehow interferes with your code, please mail it to me. That should not happen.

As for macros vs pattern matching: yes, you don’t have to use them (not even in EUnit), but the assertion macros give you much more detailed error information than a plain old badmatch does. They add convenience while avoiding run-time dependencies on the EUnit library code. (Furthermore, Common Test also uses macros, in particular for marking line numbers, and that is worse: it updates the process dictionary with an entry for the latest marked line, hence disturbing the process under test.)

/Richard

]]>