Joshua Ballanco wrote:
> ...and yet Dan Croak of Thoughtbot just recently wrote up a rather
> refreshing (and mildly scathing) look at Shoulda:
> 
> http://giantrobots.thoughtbot.com/2008/11/7/a-critical-look-at-the-current-state-of-ruby-testing
> 
> If you haven't yet, look at MiniTest. It claims to be a foundation for
> building other test suites, but I rather like it on it's own. Small,
> simple, fast...and I really like their Mock strategy. Very clean...
> like Ruby!

It's kind of misleading. Many of the assertions he uses in the 
Test::Unit example are rails-specific, and don't work with the standard 
library (1.8 test/unit or miniunit/minitest/bfts compat layer) like he 
claims.

I've dealt with this struggle a bit recently... I think I can safely 
comment on Test::Unit and Miniunit.

Miniunit is good for simple situations. Most situations are simple. 
There's nothing wrong with that. Unless you want the BDD stuff, use it.

If you need to do anything unorthodox, you will not find (or be capable 
of doing without extensive monkeypatching) that support in miniunit. One 
of the nice things in particular about Test::Unit is that it takes a 
very OOP nature to testing; Miniunit is very top-down and the parts are 
harder to deal with individually than with Test::Unit, and miniunit is 
small and light as a result.

QA and Testing is one thing Perl really excels at. I think it would be 
wise to look at how they're doing it and consider adapting ruby's 
environment to deal with it in a similar way. TAP and Test::Harness mean 
that you can write the test suite with print statements if you really 
want to, that's a powerful abstraction I don't think is transferring 
well between language communities due to perl's pariah status here.

-Erik
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.