On Jan 17, 2008, at 17:57 PM, Phlip wrote:
> Eric Hodel wrote:
>>> Didn't see it in 1.8.6.111 - should I get Ruby 2 ?
>> Use trunk.
>
> D'oh, We forgot about -rhead!
>
> Hmm. Firstly, parsers/test_parse_c.rb is broken. It just needed this  
> line:
>
>  @options = RDoc::Options.new(RDoc::RDoc::GENERATORS)
>
> And the enclosed file is my new test suite, ported to the "trunk".  
> Advise if these servers scrape off attachments or something!
>
> It seems to work fine, under this:
>
>  ./ruby test/rdoc/formatters/format_html_test.rb
>
> I put it in a new folder, formatters, and gave it a more collation- 
> friendly filename than the others.
>
> I will continue to have my way with my bench version, and I'll send  
> you (privately) any tweaks that become publication-ready.
>
> <format_html_test.rb>

This test has too many dependencies.  If your goal is to test  
RDoc::Generator::HtmlMethod#markup_code, it shouldn't depend on the  
parser's output.  It should construct the object whose method you're  
going to test, and that's all.

Is all this XML necessary?  I don't see any nested markup, and having  
to figure out XPATH plus RDoc to add new tests seems like overkill.   
Testing RDoc::Generator::HtmlMethod#markup_code directly without any  
XML/XPATH will be much simpler and easier to understand by anyone who  
wants to expand the tests.

That said, I'm really not sure what is being tested here.  The test's  
class is RDocFormatTest, and there's a test_format method, but there's  
no other mention of formats anywhere.  It appears to me you're testing  
HTMLMethod#markup_code, but I could be wrong.  Maybe with all the  
parsing stuff, you're really testing the parser?

If your test fails, where do I go to look for the problem?  It uses  
such a large part of the RDoc library that it isn't going to help much  
in tracking down bugs beyond "yes, it's broken".

Also, I find your use of 'muther luvvver' in poor taste.