1.9 test woe

ruby-talk
1

porting a lib to 1.9, I was presented with this:

# somewhere it did a require 'test/unit'
# then later
uninitialized constant Test::Unit::AutoRunner

The fix was:

gem install test-unit
gem 'test-unit'
require 'test/unit'

ref:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/test-unit-tracker/2008-October/000012.html

However--is this a bug? Does this mean that minitest isn't totally
compatible?
Thanks.
=r

···

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

2

It's not. The library you're porting is probably doing something wrong if it needs AutoRunner. Where is the code?

···

On Jul 18, 2009, at 13:14, Roger Pack wrote:

porting a lib to 1.9, I was presented with this:

# somewhere it did a require 'test/unit'
# then later
uninitialized constant Test::Unit::AutoRunner

The fix was:

gem install test-unit
gem 'test-unit'
require 'test/unit'

ref:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/test-unit-tracker/2008-October/000012.html

However--is this a bug? Does this mean that minitest isn't totally
compatible?

3

However--is this a bug? Does this mean that minitest isn't totally
compatible?

It's not. The library you're porting is probably doing something
wrong if it needs AutoRunner. Where is the code?

It came from running the GitHub - coatl/sequence: Sequence provides a unified api for access to sequential Ruby data types, like Strings, Arrays, Files, IOs, and Enumerations. unit tests in
1.9
I'm working with the author on it, too.
=r

···

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

4

Using ObjectSpace.each_object on the same line. Definitely a hack.
Sequence inherited that test from its predecessor, cursor, which was
written by someone else. I doubt those tests even work anymore.
(Please take note of the first 2 lines of that file...) I don't
understand or use them. I kept the old tests around because they
seemed to be doing some very clever things and I hoped to eventually
be able to port them to sequence's new api.... sorry for any
confusion.

···

On 7/23/09, Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@gmail.com> wrote:

However--is this a bug? Does this mean that minitest isn't totally
compatible?

It's not. The library you're porting is probably doing something
wrong if it needs AutoRunner. Where is the code?

It came from running the GitHub - coatl/sequence: Sequence provides a unified api for access to sequential Ruby data types, like Strings, Arrays, Files, IOs, and Enumerations. unit tests in
1.9
I'm working with the author on it, too.

5

It looks like the AutoRunner is only needed to set the seed across all test instances. If you just have a plain setter at the class level you should be able to ditch all that code.

···

On Jul 23, 2009, at 06:31, Roger Pack wrote:

However--is this a bug? Does this mean that minitest isn't totally
compatible?

It's not. The library you're porting is probably doing something
wrong if it needs AutoRunner. Where is the code?

It came from running the GitHub - coatl/sequence: Sequence provides a unified api for access to sequential Ruby data types, like Strings, Arrays, Files, IOs, and Enumerations. unit tests in
1.9