Hi,
Lately I was converting some of my projects to ruby 1.9, and I found that this code is no longer working:
raise if defined?(Test::Unit)
Throws:
uninitialized constant Test (NameError)
Ruby 1.8 silently works with that code. So, how do I need to handle this kind of checks in 1.9?
For now as a workaround I changed Test::Unit to Test and it works fine.
--
sdmitry -=- Dmitry V. Sabanin
MuraveyLabs.
Spam Here -> postmaster@sco.com
"Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:200407301222.10852.sdmitry@lrn.ru...
Hi,
Lately I was converting some of my projects to ruby 1.9, and I found
that this code is no longer working:
raise if defined?(Test::Unit)
I guess you intended to write
raise unless defined? Test::Unit
Throws:
uninitialized constant Test (NameError)Ruby 1.8 silently works with that code. So, how do I need to handle this
kind of checks in 1.9?
For now as a workaround I changed Test::Unit to Test and it works fine.
Why do you test and raise at all? As you see, Ruby throws an exception
anyway so why do it yourself? That's one line of code you can spare.
Regards
robert
Hi,
In message "defined? in ruby-1.9" on 04/07/30, "Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> writes:
Lately I was converting some of my projects to ruby 1.9, and I found that this code is no longer working:
raise if defined?(Test::Unit)
Throws:
uninitialized constant Test (NameError)Ruby 1.8 silently works with that code. So, how do I need to handle this kind of checks in 1.9?
For now as a workaround I changed Test::Unit to Test and it works fine.
Because 1.8 silently ignores NameError in the check for Test::Unit.
matz.
Well, no.. this code is used in exception-catching framework, so the point is to re-raise exception
if code is used for tests or to log it if it's in standalone use.
Sorry for providing non-obvious example 
On Friday 30 July 2004 15:06, Robert Klemme wrote:
"Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:200407301222.10852.sdmitry@lrn.ru...> Hi,
>
> Lately I was converting some of my projects to ruby 1.9, and I foundthat this code is no longer working:
> raise if defined?(Test::Unit)I guess you intended to write
raise unless defined? Test::Unit
--
sdmitry -=- Dmitry V. Sabanin
MuraveyLabs.
Spam Here -> postmaster@sco.com
but isn't that what 'defined?' is for? to determine if the compiler has seen
a 'name' yet?
-a
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
In message "defined? in ruby-1.9" > on 04/07/30, "Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> writes:
>Lately I was converting some of my projects to ruby 1.9, and I found that this code is no longer working:
> raise if defined?(Test::Unit)
>Throws:
> uninitialized constant Test (NameError)
>
>Ruby 1.8 silently works with that code. So, how do I need to handle this kind of checks in 1.9?
>For now as a workaround I changed Test::Unit to Test and it works fine.Because 1.8 silently ignores NameError in the check for Test::Unit.
matz.
EMAIL :: Ara [dot] T [dot] Howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
PHONE :: 303.497.6469
A flower falls, even though we love it;
and a weed grows, even though we do not love it. --Dogen
===============================================================================
"Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:200407301527.31849.sdmitry@lrn.ru...
> "Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:200407301222.10852.sdmitry@lrn.ru...
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Lately I was converting some of my projects to ruby 1.9, and I found
>
> that this code is no longer working:
> > raise if defined?(Test::Unit)
>
> I guess you intended to write
>
> raise unless defined? Test::Unit
Well, no.. this code is used in exception-catching framework, so the
point is to re-raise exception
if code is used for tests or to log it if it's in standalone use.
You have test specific code in production code? That sounds odd at
minimum. Care to uncover some more details?
Regards
robert
On Friday 30 July 2004 15:06, Robert Klemme wrote:
Ara.T.Howard wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
In message "defined? in ruby-1.9" >> on 04/07/30, "Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> writes:
>Lately I was converting some of my projects to ruby 1.9, and I found that this code is no longer working:
> raise if defined?(Test::Unit)
>Throws:
> uninitialized constant Test (NameError)
>
>Ruby 1.8 silently works with that code. So, how do I need to handle this kind of checks in 1.9?
>For now as a workaround I changed Test::Unit to Test and it works fine.Because 1.8 silently ignores NameError in the check for Test::Unit.
matz.
but isn't that what 'defined?' is for? to determine if the compiler has seen
a 'name' yet?
I supposed the rational is that by running
defined?(Test::Unit)
You are checking if the Test class/module contains a constant Unit. If Test doesn't exist then Ruby can't check this, so it throws a NameError.
The obvious, though verbose, workaround would be to do
defined?(Test) && defined(Test::Unit)
--
Mark Sparshatt
"Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:200407301527.31849.sdmitry@lrn.ru...> > "Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:200407301222.10852.sdmitry@lrn.ru...
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Lately I was converting some of my projects to ruby 1.9, and I found
> >
> > that this code is no longer working:
> > > raise if defined?(Test::Unit)
> >
> > I guess you intended to write
> >
> > raise unless defined? Test::Unit
>
> Well, no.. this code is used in exception-catching framework, so thepoint is to re-raise exception
> if code is used for tests or to log it if it's in standalone use.
You have test specific code in production code? That sounds odd at
minimum. Care to uncover some more details?
I agree, but there's no other way to test modules for my web-framework, because it manages
exceptions raised in modules by itself. And the only test specific option in production code I
have is that line
On Friday 30 July 2004 16:31, Robert Klemme wrote:
> On Friday 30 July 2004 15:06, Robert Klemme wrote:
Regards
robert
--
sdmitry -=- Dmitry V. Sabanin
MuraveyLabs.
Spam Here -> postmaster@sco.com
ah - hadn't thought of that. that it better than failing silently.
cheers.
-a
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Mark Sparshatt wrote:
Ara.T.Howard wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
In message "defined? in ruby-1.9" >>> on 04/07/30, "Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> writes:
>Lately I was converting some of my projects to ruby 1.9, and I found
that this code is no longer working:
> raise if defined?(Test::Unit)
>Throws:
> uninitialized constant Test (NameError)
>
>Ruby 1.8 silently works with that code. So, how do I need to handle
this kind of checks in 1.9?
>For now as a workaround I changed Test::Unit to Test and it works
fine.Because 1.8 silently ignores NameError in the check for Test::Unit.
matz.
but isn't that what 'defined?' is for? to determine if the compiler
has seen
a 'name' yet?I supposed the rational is that by running
defined?(Test::Unit)
You are checking if the Test class/module contains a constant Unit. If
Test doesn't exist then Ruby can't check this, so it throws a NameError.The obvious, though verbose, workaround would be to do
defined?(Test) && defined(Test::Unit)
--
Mark Sparshatt
EMAIL :: Ara [dot] T [dot] Howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
PHONE :: 303.497.6469
A flower falls, even though we love it;
and a weed grows, even though we do not love it. --Dogen
===============================================================================
Hi,
In message "Re: defined? in ruby-1.9" on 04/07/30, Mark Sparshatt <msparshatt@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
The obvious, though verbose, workaround would be to do
defined?(Test) && defined(Test::Unit)
Yes. But your example made me change my mind. In the near future 1.9
defined?(Test::Unit) will be the shorter form of your "workaround".
matz.
Now I see, thanks for explanation.
On Friday 30 July 2004 20:31, Mark Sparshatt wrote:
I supposed the rational is that by running
defined?(Test::Unit)
You are checking if the Test class/module contains a constant Unit. If
Test doesn't exist then Ruby can't check this, so it throws a NameError.
--
sdmitry -=- Dmitry V. Sabanin
MuraveyLabs.
Spam Here -> postmaster@sco.com
"Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:200407301939.15247.sdmitry@lrn.ru...
> "Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:200407301527.31849.sdmitry@lrn.ru...
>
> > > "Dmitry V. Sabanin" <sdmitry@lrn.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > news:200407301222.10852.sdmitry@lrn.ru...
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Lately I was converting some of my projects to ruby 1.9, and I
found
> > >
> > > that this code is no longer working:
> > > > raise if defined?(Test::Unit)
> > >
> > > I guess you intended to write
> > >
> > > raise unless defined? Test::Unit
> >
> > Well, no.. this code is used in exception-catching framework, so the
>
> point is to re-raise exception
>
> > if code is used for tests or to log it if it's in standalone use.
>
> You have test specific code in production code? That sounds odd at
> minimum. Care to uncover some more details?
I agree, but there's no other way to test modules for my web-framework,
because it manages
exceptions raised in modules by itself.
Ah, I see.
And the only test specific option in production code I
have is that line
Swear it by Ruby's life, that it's really the only line! (Sorry, the
heat might have damaged my brain... ;-))
Spam Here -> postmaster@sco.com
Hehe...
robert
On Friday 30 July 2004 16:31, Robert Klemme wrote:
> > On Friday 30 July 2004 15:06, Robert Klemme wrote:
I swear
On Friday 30 July 2004 20:01, Robert Klemme wrote:
Swear it by Ruby's life, that it's really the only line!
heat might have damaged my brain... ;-))
--
sdmitry -=- Dmitry V. Sabanin
MuraveyLabs.
Spam Here -> postmaster@sco.com