On Dec 12, 2008, at 7:31 PM, Ryan Davis wrote:

>
> On Nov 12, 2008, at 10:23 , Dave Thomas wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Ryan Davis wrote:
>>
>>> I've been talking to both John and Dave Thomas about this  
>>> (separately). Currently minitest/unit.rb is analogous to test/unit/ 
>>> testcase.rb, not test/unit.rb and I really like it that way. It  
>>> means I can finally write abstract testcases w/o autorun side  
>>> effects (and w/o the undef_method madness from test/unit). But, I  
>>> agree that the current situation is confusing and less than ideal.  
>>> I think the simplest thing that could possibly work is to have an  
>>> explicit require for autorun behavior:
>>>
>>> # minitest/autorun.rb:
>>>
>>> require 'minitest/unit'
>>> require 'minitest/spec'
>>> require 'minitest/mock'
>>>
>>> MiniTest::Unit.autorun
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> What do you guys think?
>>
>> (As you know.. :) I'd vote for autorun being the default, as most  
>> people use it, and making it possible to disable autorun when you  
>> define the tests.
>
> after careful consideration, I decided against this. One of Jeremy  
> Kemper's latest bugs (on ruby 1.9) was the final straw. I weighed  
> the pros and cons of going with your idea of having a special  
> superclass construct to disable autorun for abstract testcases, and  
> that was finally rejected because it wasn't the simplest thing that  
> could possibly work. I finalized (as finalized as I ever get at  
> least) on 'minitest/autorun.rb' as the simplest thing that could  
> possibly work. It is already in ruby trunk and will go out in the  
> next release of minitest. (I should point out that I only did the  
> first require, not spec or mock).
>
> It just makes much more sense to me from a design perspective.

Quick question from the unwashed masses: I admit I have not been  
following along closely, but is there a reason that 'testrb' wouldn't  
be moved from test/unit to minitest/unit?

- Josh