[ruby-core:67350] Re: Future of test suites for Ruby

Adding to this list:

* I have little doubt MRI developers would prefer committing to a single
repository (MRI), rather than two repositories.  As a JRuby developer, I am
happy contributing to what MRI developers prefer.  I am resolved that I
will be contributing to two repositories regardless of what is decided.

* I would like to have commit access to whatever MRI developers prefer.   I
am guessing that is MRI's repository.  If it is MRIs current test suite
(which is my current assumption), then I would like to help breaking up the
granularity of the tests more and possibly help to address some of the
technical critiques Brian brought up in his blog article last week.

* We need to make an extra simple process for non-MRI developers to submit
tests.  Up to this point, I tell people: "Add a test and submit to MRI repo
or add a spec to rubyspec".  At this point I want to tell them one thing
and I want it to be easy and unambiguous.

So main point here is I am willing to do what MRI devs want to do...

-Tom


On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I'll try to be brief so we can discuss all this. tl;dr: RubySpec is
> valuable, MRI tests are valuable, we need to better utilize both of
> them.
>
> As you may have heard, Brian Shirai officially ended the RubySpec
> project last week:
> http://rubini.us/2014/12/31/matz-s-ruby-developers-don-t-use-rubyspec/
>
> I believe this is a good opportunity for us to address concerns about
> how Ruby behavior is being tested over time.
>
> I think we can agree on the following facts:
>
> * ruby-core devs *have* been using RubySpec on and off, and at least
> some of us see value in continuing to do so. naruse already maintains
> a fork at github/naruse/rubyspec.
>
> * MRI's suite is not nearly as bad as the post claims. I have done
> some coverage measurements that show it doing at least as well as
> RubySpec for core classes, and significantly better for standard
> libraries.
>
> * MRI's tests are often hard to read, too large, undercommented.
> There's a lot of room for improvement, but this is obviously an
> organic codebase that has had many contributors.
>
> * Ugly tests are harder for users (and contributors) to grok. Ugly
> tests are less attractive targets for contribution.
>
> * RubySpec represents a valuable set of tests for Ruby behavior. There
> will be a large overlap with MRI's tests, but RubySpec does things
> that MRI's suite does not (and vice versa).
>
> * RubySpec is not gone; Rubinius will still need a suite to verify
> Ruby compatibility. RubySpec lives in the Rubinius repository now.
>
> There's a number of paths forward for us right now.
>
> * Do nothing. Run the last public RubySpec dump periodically to ensure
> we don't regress, as has been done with naruse's fork. New tests
> continue to go into MRI suite.
>
> This is the status quo, and I don't think anyone benefits from it
> other than folks who dislike change.
>
> * Begin an effort to bring missing tests from RubySpec into MRI's
> suite and to clean up and improve MRI's suite. Abandon RubySpec at
> some point.
>
> I think *some* effort should be made to improve MRI's suite in the
> short term, since we obviously aren't going to throw it away. I don't
> like the idea of spending a lot of time porting tests one way or the
> other...at least until we've picked a winner. I don't like the idea of
> abandoning RubySpec, since it has many valuable features.
>
> * Take over RubySpec as a fork and begin to maintain it as a secondary
> suite for MRI. Encourage contributors and committers to write specs
> rather than tests.
>
> I think this is possible. The barrier to contributing to RubySpec is
> much lower if we're maintaining a fork of it, and I think that
> eliminates many obstacles. I also feel like the future needs to be in
> either RubySpec or a much cleaner version of MRI's suite, and there's
> less work to start using the former now.
>
> ...
>
> So that's what I have for now. Give me your thoughts...anything goes.
>



-- 
blog: http://blog.enebo.com       twitter: tom_enebo
mail: [e-mail]