Return values ...

[bigtiger]

I'm not sure whether I love this idea or not but, my first thought as I looked at the code was to make the output more readable/usable/parseable.

Instead of:

grid-columns five-columns-at-960px {
  expect: true;
}

What do you think of:

grid-columns five-columns-at-960px {
  expect: success();
}

This way success could be parsed or could be defined to have a behavior.

Similarly:

grid-columns five-columns-at-960px {
  expect: 95px;
}

could be:

grid-columns five-columns-at-960px {
  expect: failed_with("95px");
}

There's too much logic in SCSS for me to ignore the potential of regression and the fact that I'm relying on a ton of third-party code.

[joefiorini]

Thanks @bigtiger, I like that idea. At the very least it could make responding to successes or failures easier if we ran the output back through the parser again.

Could you expound on your last statement? I'm not sure I understood what you meant. :)

[bigtiger]

That's my (obviously poorly stated) argument for TDD in SCSS. There's logic there. It could regress by my action, or in the case of framework changes, or someone else's.

[joefiorini]

Gotcha, once I reread your post it made sense. That is a big part of why I started this.

The more I think about this idea the more I like it. I realized that SCSS is probably the only language that would let you compile the compiled output. If it will output something like what you posted above that we could then recompile, would that be a sufficient test runner for now? I will play with this when I get some time over the next couple days.