On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Phil Hagelberg <phil / hagelb.org> wrote:
> 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.

Readability and understandability are important, but they do not imply
extensibility. I looked at your code but didn't see any test/unit
extension to compare with miniunit.

I found miniunit more difficult to extend, at first, since it
collapsed some methods that used to be available for override. But I
gave my concerns to Ryan and he refactored to make my job easy again.
So +1 for maintainability.

All authors of mocking libraries should try miniunit immediately to
help guide its compatibility and extensibility BEFORE it's merged with
1.9.

jeremy