schneik / us.ibm.com writes:

> # Mathieu Bouchard <matju / cam.org> writes:
> #
> # > It would be nice to have a number of unit tests for Ruby internals
> # > themselves, so that if I break something hacking with the internals I
> may
> # > know it. Of course this isn't ideal because Ruby unit tests have to
> rely
> # > on Ruby somehow, to be evaluated; but it could be good for catching
> subtle
> # > changes in less fundamental modules/classes, e.g. IO, File, Regex.
> #
> # Funny you should say that...
> #
> # I'm in the middle of completing a set for Ruby 1.6. Right now I have
> # tests for 796 separate functions, with just over 10,000 asserts.
> 
> I have a comment and a question:
> 
> (1) Thanks.
> 
> (2) What's the impetus for doing this on top of all your other work?

I wanted to check for major functionality changes in the
libraries. Because we autogenerate the Ruby output in the book, it
would be easy to have the functionality change and not notice it.

It also helped pin down a couple of bugs during 1.6 development.

Dave