Kouhei Sutou <kou / cozmixng.org> writes:

> First, it's OK for me that replacing Test::Unit with
> miniunit if miniunit provides high extensibility and will be
> well maintained. (e.g. accept new extension API request if
> it's needed)

> But it seems that high extensibility conflicts with simple
> implementation.

Not necessarily. I've written a tool[1] to help track test failures over
time (among other things), and I've found miniunit much, much easier to
extend than test/unit. Because it's so readable, it's very easy to find
at what point you should insert your modifications. Trying to do so with
test/unit is still possible I'm sure, but it involves reading an order
of magnitude more code before you can start. It's impossible to keep it
all in your head at once.

Of course this is only my experience from writing a single
library. Perhaps other needs will not mesh as well with miniunit, but I
would rather hear from people who have tried than speculate about it.

Phil Hagelberg
http://technomancy.us

[1] - http://augment.rubyforge.org