On 1/11/07, Jeremy Henty <jeremy / chaos.org.uk> wrote:
> On 2007-01-11, Nathaniel Talbott <ntalbott / gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd much rather not have to manually go through each gem, figure out
> > what it needs so that I can run its tests, store that somehow (since
> > it's not in the spec), install the dependencies since they aren't
> > already, and all that to just automatically run tests for the gems.
> Maybe a simple convention is all that's needed.  (Echoing myself in
> another thread.)  If the full test set for "foo" is too cumbersome,
> release it as "foo-test".  It should be easy to write a script that
> installs "foo-test" for every installed gem "foo".
>
> (Actually I think that the test-driven philosophy should encourage
> developers to think of the tests as just part of the product and
> package them as such whenever it is reasonably possible.  But there
> are bound to be occasions when this is not practical.)

Given your last paragraph, why would idempotency dependencies be any
different than dependencies necessary to run the tests? If I were to
switch all of my unit tests to rspec, would it be appropriate to mark
my gem as depending on rspec? After all, only the people who are going
to run the tests will need it, just as only people who are going to
interact with the gem on a meta-level will need hoe.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin / zieglers.ca