From: nathaniel@...
Date: 2002-03-13T23:48:15+09:00
Subject: RE: testunit, was RE: [ANN] rpkg 0.3

Rich Kilmer [mailto:rich@infoether.com] wrote:

> It is the merging of Lapidary and RubyUnit (backward 
> compatibility APIs for both)

Er, actually there's only backwards compatibility for RubyUnit... does
anyone need it for Lapidary? Since Test::Unit evolved out of Lapidary
(while adding the good stuff from RubyUnit), I haven't felt the need to
provide Lapidary support. The conversion is fairly simple from Lapidary
to Test::Unit, and I think there's less legacy code that uses Lapidary.
If someone feels it's critical, though, I could look at creating it.

I do plan on leaving Lapidary up on sourceforge for the foreseeable
future, just in case.


> Going forward, its own API will be the standard unit testing 
> API for Ruby.

Yep, Masaki Suketa (the author of RubyUnit) and I have communicated a
lot about what ought to go in the Ruby library, and Test::Unit is the
outgrowth of those talks.


To take this back to rpkg, does it have any way to run the unit tests
before it installs? Don't know if people have noticed, but Test::Unit
runs its own tests as part of the installation process, and aborts the
install if they fail. It'd be great if this functionality could easily
be added by any rpkg package creator. Just a thought.

BTW, I'd love to have a Test::Unit rpkg (at least until it goes in to
the standard distribution). I'm going to try to look in to it, but if
someone else wanted to create it, they're welcome to.


Nathaniel

<:((><
+ - -
| RoleModel Software, Inc.
| EQUIP VI