feat: allow getting the Assert from an AssertError#144
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
@epage Bumping this. Would you be interested in that change ? |
epage
reviewed
Oct 17, 2022
ceb1876 to
36b6080
Compare
36b6080 to
aadf8bb
Compare
Contributor
|
This is now available in v2.0.5 |
takumi-earth
pushed a commit
to earthlings-dev/assert_cmd
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 27, 2026
feat: allow getting the Assert from an AssertError
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I'm in the process of writing integration tests with this awesome crate :)
My tool is basically a CRUD cli for a distant API, and while writing tests I ran into this problem while testing deletions.
In some cases, i need to check the output of the
Asserteven if it succeeded when I expected a failure ( but that would work the other way around.An example : to verify a deletion process you'd do :delete, then read and expect an error :
However in some cases the "read" operation succeed because the resource was not yet deleted by the remote system.
I would need to check, because even if I was expecting a failure, a success might not invalidate the test.
Continuing the above example :
I was not sure if a getter method or simply marking the field public was the better choice there.. Let me know what you think.