From: Kouhei Sutou Date: 2008-02-22T22:09:24+09:00 Subject: Re: Test::Unit maintainer Hi Ryan, Can I start to improve Test::Unit? -- kou In <20080215.214155.171191395086001425.kou@cozmixng.org> "Re: Test::Unit maintainer" on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:41:55 +0900 (JST), Kouhei Sutou wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > Thanks for accepting me as a Test::Unit maintainer. > > In <4A65B183-F9A5-450E-86C2-75F279433F35@zenspider.com> > "Re: Test::Unit maintainer" on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:00:25 -0800, > Ryan Davis wrote: > > > > Test::Unit is just maintenance mode not development mode at > > > present, isn't it? Ryan, if you don't have a plan that you > > > develop Test::Unit actively, could you give me a chance for > > > that? In other words, could you accept me as one of the > > > Test::Unit maintainers? (I have the Ruby repository account > > > as the RSS Parser maintainer.) > > > > My plan, to make it public (if I haven't already), is to release test/ > > unit as a gem and replace it in the ruby distro with miniunit (full > > set of assertions, 1/10th the code). That way projects (usually IDEs) > > that need the old test/unit (for the runners, which are being dropped > > for a newer much simpler mechanism) can just bundle the gem. > > I agree that runners can be optional but I don't agree that > the Ruby's official testing framework only have a minimal > feature set. Because testing is more important for script > languages (include Ruby) rather than compile based language > to detect minor bugs like typo, typo or typo. (I have many > typos... :<) > > Yes, simple is good but it's only true when it has required > features. It seems that miniunit is a bit small testing > framework for users. (Yes, miniunit will be the best > solution for Ruby implementors on bootstrap.) > > For example, miniunit can't specify tests what we want to > run. If miniunit's target users include all Ruby > implementation on bootstrap, miniunit should not use > optparse.rb for processing command line options like > bootstraptest/ in ruby1.9 does. But it's strange that a > library that included in the Ruby distribution doesn't use > standard distribution library, optparse.rb, for processing > command line options. > > > I think the following features are needed for the recent > useful testing frameworks: > > * mock > * diff between expected value and but was value > * many built-in assertions > > I hope that Ruby's standard distribution testing framework > is included in them and it's useful by default without using > gem. (Yes, it's important that it's easy to extend by gem.) > > I think most of Test::Unit users are application/library > authors and Ruby implementors are a bit. I want Test::Unit > is useful for application/library users rather than Ruby > implementors. That is, Test::Unit become powerful by default > for application/library authors and miniunit keeps simple > and minimal for all users including Ruby implementors but > they install miniunit by themselves. > > > Ryan, can I improve Test::Unit? > > > Thanks, > -- > kou In <4A65B183-F9A5-450E-86C2-75F279433F35@zenspider.com> "Re: Test::Unit maintainer" on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:00:25 -0800, Ryan Davis wrote: > > On Feb 13, 2008, at 4:33 AM, Kouhei Sutou wrote: > > > Hi Nathaniel, Ryan, > > > > It seems that the current Test::Unit maintainer is Ryan: > > http://blog.talbott.ws/articles/2007/6/20/test-unit-a-time-to-maintain-and-time-to-hand-off > > Is it right? > > Yes, although I've been doing a poor job of it because I've been > working on my parser so much. > > > Test::Unit is just maintenance mode not development mode at > > present, isn't it? Ryan, if you don't have a plan that you > > develop Test::Unit actively, could you give me a chance for > > that? In other words, could you accept me as one of the > > Test::Unit maintainers? (I have the Ruby repository account > > as the RSS Parser maintainer.) > > My plan, to make it public (if I haven't already), is to release test/ > unit as a gem and replace it in the ruby distro with miniunit (full > set of assertions, 1/10th the code). That way projects (usually IDEs) > that need the old test/unit (for the runners, which are being dropped > for a newer much simpler mechanism) can just bundle the gem. > > I'd be happy to have you as a test/unit maintainer. The thing is big > and I need all the help I can get.