[#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: 2006-07-13 18:45:03 UTC
List: ruby-core #8211

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jonathan gold [mailto:dev@samizdatdigital.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:35 AM
> To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] --fqname option to test/unit/autorunner.rb
> 
> 
> Thanks again for getting back to me. Perhaps my original focus on the 
> fact that I had multiple test cases in the same file was 
> something of a 
> red herring -- I think it's only incidental to the real issue.
> 
> As I understand the current intent of AutoRunner, and of the testing 
> libraries as a whole, the intent is to have a collector 
> (Collector::ObjectSpace, Collector::Dir, or otherwise) gather up 
> multiple test cases from somewhere. As it is today, the 
> '--testcase' and 
> the '--name' options are in place to allow the user to filter the 
> collection, regardless of how they were collected, in some meaningful 
> way. I believe that these two options leave a gap for what 
> I'm proposing 
> with '--fqname', and so it seems that the patch would be in line with 
> the current spirit of the libraries.

Ok, just to clarify.  You've got a file that does something like this?

# ts_all.rb
require 'tc_collector_objectspace'
require 'tc_collector_dir'

And each of those test cases has a 'test_foo' method in it?

And then you want to run 'ruby ts_all.rb --name test_foo' but it's
ambiguous?

And you're proposing --fqname to make it unambiguous?

Well, in THAT case...yeah, --fqname sounds like a reasonable request. :)

Now, you just have to convince Matz and/or Nathaniel.

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