Description

pesse

opened on Nov 12, 2020

Issue body actions

Describe the bug
Different to all the comparison matchers, BE_BETWEEN does not give away details of a type mismatch in its error message. It would be very helpful to have these details, for example when accidentially comparing timestamp with timestamp with timezone.

Internally, BE_BETWEEN should probably also fail on mismatch of upper and lower bound (this might not happen at the moment, but I would like to have a check in the Matcher itself to make it more error-proof)

Provide version info
Latest utPLSQL version, all databases

Information about client software
Independent from client

To Reproduce

begin
    -- Shows exactly *why* it fails
    ut.expect(to_timestamp(current_timestamp)).to_equal(current_timestamp);
    -- Gives only a generic "cannot be used with" - no indication what kind of datatype the matcher is initialized with
    ut.expect(to_timestamp(current_timestamp)).to_be_between(current_timestamp-interval '5' second, current_timestamp);
end;
/

Message: The matcher 'be between' cannot be used with data type (timestamp).

Expected behavior
Similar description as with the comparison-Matchers, like:
Actual (timestamp with timezone) cannot be compared to Expected (timestamp) using matcher 'be between'.

Activity

1. pesse commented on Nov 12, 2020

   

   pesse

   on Nov 12, 2020

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   I would like to implement this myself
2. pesse

   self-assigned this

   on Nov 12, 2020
3. lwasylow

   added

   enhancement

   on Jan 30, 2022
4. lwasylow commented on Feb 2, 2022

   

   lwasylow

   on Feb 2, 2022

   Member

   More actions

   Hi @pesse, you still want to look at that one or you of for me to pick it up ?
5. pesse commented on Feb 3, 2022

   

   pesse

   on Feb 3, 2022

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   Haha, please pick it up. Once I find time and energy to get into the project again, I have loads of stuff to do with cli and java-api

   Reacted by Lukasz Wasylow
6. lwasylow

   self-assigned this

   on Feb 8, 2022
7. lwasylow commented on Feb 8, 2022

   

   lwasylow

   on Feb 8, 2022

   Member

   More actions

   So I'm not entirely sure that this is a valid message.
   Its produced by ut_matcher in opposite to ut_equal generated by ut_comparision_matcher.
   The similar situation we have for to_be_like or have_count.
   Unless we want to create customized messages for each of these matchers ?
   @jgebal @pesse , what's your thought

Issue actions