Hi Ryan,

Can I start to improve Test::Unit?

--
kou

In <20080215.214155.171191395086001425.kou / cozmixng.org>
  "Re: Test::Unit maintainer" on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:41:55 +0900 (JST),
  Kouhei Sutou <kou / cozmixng.org> wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
> 
> Thanks for accepting me as a Test::Unit maintainer.
> 
> In <4A65B183-F9A5-450E-86C2-75F279433F35 / zenspider.com>
>   "Re: Test::Unit maintainer" on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:00:25 -0800,
>   Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby / zenspider.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Test::Unit is just maintenance mode not development mode at
> > > present, isn't it? Ryan, if you don't have a plan that you
> > > develop Test::Unit actively, could you give me a chance for
> > > that? In other words, could you accept me as one of the
> > > Test::Unit maintainers? (I have the Ruby repository account
> > > as the RSS Parser maintainer.)
> > 
> > My plan, to make it public (if I haven't already), is to release test/ 
> > unit as a gem and replace it in the ruby distro with miniunit (full  
> > set of assertions, 1/10th the code). That way projects (usually IDEs)  
> > that need the old test/unit (for the runners, which are being dropped  
> > for a newer much simpler mechanism) can just bundle the gem.
> 
> I agree that runners can be optional but I don't agree that
> the Ruby's official testing framework only have a minimal
> feature set. Because testing is more important for script
> languages (include Ruby) rather than compile based language
> to detect minor bugs like typo, typo or typo. (I have many
> typos... :<)
> 
> Yes, simple is good but it's only true when it has required
> features. It seems that miniunit is a bit small testing
> framework for users. (Yes, miniunit will be the best
> solution for Ruby implementors on bootstrap.)
> 
> For example, miniunit can't specify tests what we want to
> run. If miniunit's target users include all Ruby
> implementation on bootstrap, miniunit should not use
> optparse.rb for processing command line options like
> bootstraptest/ in ruby1.9 does. But it's strange that a
> library that included in the Ruby distribution doesn't use
> standard distribution library, optparse.rb, for processing
> command line options.
> 
> 
> I think the following features are needed for the recent
> useful testing frameworks:
> 
>   * mock
>   * diff between expected value and but was value
>   * many built-in assertions
> 
> I hope that Ruby's standard distribution testing framework
> is included in them and it's useful by default without using
> gem. (Yes, it's important that it's easy to extend by gem.)
> 
> I think most of Test::Unit users are application/library
> authors and Ruby implementors are a bit. I want Test::Unit
> is useful for application/library users rather than Ruby
> implementors. That is, Test::Unit become powerful by default
> for application/library authors and miniunit keeps simple
> and minimal for all users including Ruby implementors but
> they install miniunit by themselves.
> 
> 
> Ryan, can I improve Test::Unit?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> --
> kou

In <4A65B183-F9A5-450E-86C2-75F279433F35 / zenspider.com>
  "Re: Test::Unit maintainer" on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:00:25 -0800,
  Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby / zenspider.com> wrote:

> 
> On Feb 13, 2008, at 4:33 AM, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
> 
> > Hi Nathaniel, Ryan,
> >
> > It seems that the current Test::Unit maintainer is Ryan:
> >  http://blog.talbott.ws/articles/2007/6/20/test-unit-a-time-to-maintain-and-time-to-hand-off
> > Is it right?
> 
> Yes, although I've been doing a poor job of it because I've been  
> working on my parser so much.
> 
> > Test::Unit is just maintenance mode not development mode at
> > present, isn't it? Ryan, if you don't have a plan that you
> > develop Test::Unit actively, could you give me a chance for
> > that? In other words, could you accept me as one of the
> > Test::Unit maintainers? (I have the Ruby repository account
> > as the RSS Parser maintainer.)
> 
> My plan, to make it public (if I haven't already), is to release test/ 
> unit as a gem and replace it in the ruby distro with miniunit (full  
> set of assertions, 1/10th the code). That way projects (usually IDEs)  
> that need the old test/unit (for the runners, which are being dropped  
> for a newer much simpler mechanism) can just bundle the gem.
> 
> I'd be happy to have you as a test/unit maintainer. The thing is big  
> and I need all the help I can get.