From: Massimiliano Mirra <list@...>
Date: 2002-03-14T01:58:13+09:00
Subject: Re: testunit, was RE: [ANN] rpkg 0.3

On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 11:48:15PM +0900, nathaniel@talbott.ws wrote:
> 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.

Fine with me, I'll happily convert my Lapidary tests to Test::Unit
rather than having compatibility layers in between.

> 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.

The Debian model allows preinstallation and postinstallation scripts.
I can introduce them and condition the package installation to a
successful return code from the preinstallation script.  Running the
tests or not would then be the choice of the package maintainer, and
I'd prefer that over enforcing tests from within rpkg code.  Would
this be fine?

> 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.

If after you open usage.html and go to the section on package creation
it takes you longer than fifteen minutes, I'll package Test::Unit and
pay you a beer. ;-)

Massimiliano