ˌbodʲɪˈɡrʲim
ˌbodʲɪˈɡrʲim
Breaking changes to existing providers/ingredients are not on the table.
If you try using `assertClose`, you'll quickly discover that sometimes you want to check `abs(a-b) < ε`, sometimes `abs((a-b)/a) < ε`, sometimes both, sometimes any. It's a job for a...
To be honest, `abs(x) < ε` looks even more ad-hoc. FWIW when it comes to this kind of tests, I find it more expressive to use `QuickCheck` instead `hunit`.
That's no coincedence, `tasty` has a modular architecture, and @UnkindPartition always argued that anything which can be implemented as a plugin and maintained independently should be a separate package, spreading...
Probably a separate plugin, implementing a test provider for HUnit-approx.
Ignoring unrecognized options is dangerous: it is too easy for a typo to remain unnoticed with potentially disastrous effect. It is easy to introduce a dummy dependency or add a...
Cf. https://github.com/UnkindPartition/tasty/pull/328
FWIW an ability to control duration output would be useful for [`tasty-bench`](https://hackage.haskell.org/package/tasty-bench).
`tasty` executable has no knowledge that it was invoked by `cabal test`.
(I'm not a maintainer) Well, at the very least it could be `stack test` instead of `cabal test`. Or `cabal run`. Or `stack run`.