[#8136] Confused exception handling in Continuation Context — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>

Hi all

13 messages 2006/07/06

[#8248] One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...>

I just posted this to ruby-talk. But I would also like to discuss this

33 messages 2006/07/18
[#8264] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

From my experience using both tool chains on Windows (for the ruby-prof

[#8266] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...> 2006/07/19

Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8267] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

> Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8271] my sandboxing extension!! — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>

I have (what feels like) very exciting news. I finally sat down to code up my

17 messages 2006/07/19

[#8430] Re: doc patch: weakref. — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>

> -----Original Message-----

19 messages 2006/07/28
[#8434] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/29

Hi,

[#8436] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2006/07/29

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#8437] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...> 2006/07/29

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:37:24PM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:

[#8441] Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...>

I have the following code:

18 messages 2006/07/30
[#8442] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — nobu@... 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8443] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/30

Why does this:

[#8445] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8454] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/31

So to clarify...

Re: [PATCH] --fqname option to test/unit/autorunner.rb

From: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2006-07-07 13:50:37 UTC
List: ruby-core #8165
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jonathan gold [mailto:dev@samizdatdigital.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 3:51 PM
> To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
> Subject: [PATCH] --fqname option to test/unit/autorunner.rb
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I'd like to contribute a patch to test/unit/autorunner.rb 
> that allows a 
> new option '--fqname', which would be the logical AND of what 
> is today 
> '--testcase' with '--name'.
> 
> I have tests in files with many testcases, some of which use 
> subclassing 
> or an include to repeatedly run different variations of the 
> same test. 
> Right now, if the method "test_foo" is defined/included in both 
> FooTestCase and BarTestCase, there is no way for me to tell 
> autorunner 
> to run just the "test_foo" method in the FooTestCase class. If I say 
> '--testcase FooTestCase', I run all methods in FooTestCase. If I say 
> '--name test_foo' then I run test_foo in both FooTestCase and in 
> BarTestCase. The proposed patch allows me to say '--fqname 
> FooTestCase#test_foo' and have only that single test case be run.

It's not a bad idea, though in practice I would say it's unusual to have
more than one test class per file.

> I'm new to the ruby community, so apologize if I'm overlooking the 
> correcct way to submit code like this. I didn't see any 
> guidelines for 
> applying to become a committer or someone with the rights to request 
> write access to the CVS repository, and, judging from the 
> email threads 
> on this list, the thing to do is put 'PATCH' in the subject line and 
> then provide the diff (attached). Hopefully this is correct, 
> but please 
> let me know what I can do to help make things easier.

Your subject and attachment is fine (you can also submit patches via the
tracker on RubyForge), but I wouldn't expect CVS commit access anytime
soon. :)

Regards,

Dan


This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly 
prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication 
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy 
all copies of the communication and any attachments.


In This Thread

Prev Next