[PROPOSAL] We need a comprehensive test suite

All,

This is a long post, and I hate to sound like I'm lecturing, but...

Matz's announcement of 1.8.3 beta 1 reminds me of something. We need a test suite. A large, comprehensive test suite. Written using test-unit. And we need it NOW.

I know that Chad Fowler started something along those lines (the "Rubicon" project on RubyForge). But, that was mainly a translation of RubyUnit to TestUnit. I don't think those tests were sufficient. They were also written in the 1.6.x days, making them potentially obsolete.

Another thing that concerns me is that some packages in the standard library don't appear to have any test suite. Or, at least. they aren't in the 'test' directory.

So, we need to fix this. Here's a few suggestions I have:

* Each class in the core library should have it's own directory under 'test' in the Ruby distro. Then each method should have its own test case. That's right - each *METHOD* (for the core Ruby classes).

Thus:

ruby-1.8.3/
    test/
       core/
          Array/
             tc_clear.rb
             tc_collect.rb
             tc_collect_bang.rb
             tc_compact.rb
             ...
          Bignum/
             tc_div.rb
             ...
       stdlib/
          Logger/
             ...

As things stand now we've got a single file for each core class, but if we write comprehensive test cases for each method, putting every test in a single file would become unwieldy. Hence the suggestion to have each method in its own file.

Regarding the packages in the standard library. I know some of them have the tests inlined in the source code (Pathname, for example). I believe such test suites should be separated from the source itself, and put in the 'stdlib' subdirectory I propose. Having it in a single, standard location makes it easier for developers to find and run, instead of having to dig through subdirectories manually. It might also prove to be immensely useful for anyone developing packages around test failure reporting tools.

We also need a well organized, professional looking, online database where folks can report success and failures. Such a database would contain information like platform, compiler, Ruby version, etc., and list which tests succeeded and which failed. This could all be automated during a "make test" (presumably optional). Such a database could also be used for individual packages.

Here's an example from CPAN to show you what I mean (though I don't particularly like the layout):

http://testers.cpan.org/show/Set-Array.html#Set-Array-0.12

As an aside, I would like to see Rake included in 1.8.3 and beyond because I think it could help with automating some of these things.

Having said all this, this project is just too big for one person to do in their free time. Short of someone offering me a full time salary to pursue my goal, this effort will need many volunteers.

So, here's what I think we need to do:

* Register a project on RubyForge (I'll handle that, depending on the response I get).
* Canvas for volunteers - one person per one or two core classes/modules (ideally). See below.
* Volunteers would be responsible for writing test cases for their assigned classes/modules.
* The authors of the various stdlib packages would be responsible for maintaining their own test suites, or for finding someone to handle that task for them.
* One or two people would write the online database that would handle test reports. (Perhaps a Rails or Nitro app).

Hopefully, this rant hasn't come off as condescending or rude. I'm just a little frustrated with the current state of the test suite, especially when I see just how well done the Perl test suite is. It was also motivated by the desire to submit core changes without having to provide a custom test case every time. I could submit a diff, perhaps a bug fix, and say with confidence, "Yup, still passes the test suite", to say nothing of actually finding potential bugs in the already existant code, or potentially useless code.

Anyway, if you would like to volunteer, please respond to this post or send me a personal email at djberg96 at yahoo dot com. Indicate which classes or modules you would like to be responsible for, though please limit yourself to two, max, at least initially.

If anyone feels that I am out of line, or that this is a waste of time, I'm listening.

Regards

Dan

PS - I'll take the Array class. :slight_smile:

Daniel Berger wrote:

Matz's announcement of 1.8.3 beta 1 reminds me of something. We need a test suite. A large, comprehensive test suite. Written using test-unit. And we need it NOW.

I whole-heartedly agree.

I was sad to see Rubicon's luster fade, and to see "make test"
compete it's job so quick and quietly...

Regards,

···

--
Bil Kleb
http://fun3d.larc.nasa.gov

I'm not sure how much help I could give to writing all the actual
tests, but I'd certainly be willing to help with the database app.

···

On 5/12/05, Daniel Berger <djberge@qwest.com> wrote:

* One or two people would write the online database that would handle
test reports. (Perhaps a Rails or Nitro app).

--
Regards,
John Wilger

-----------
Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked.
"Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat.
"I don't know," Alice answered.
"Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."
- Lewis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland

I can go along with this. But before anyone commits too much time on this
it would be nice to know what the core developers think about this.

If I were to join this effort I'd like to know it was going to be included
in the ruby source tree.

Great effort.

Cheers,

Emiel

···

* Daniel Berger (djberge@qwest.com) wrote:

All,

This is a long post, and I hate to sound like I'm lecturing, but...

Matz's announcement of 1.8.3 beta 1 reminds me of something. We need a
test suite. A large, comprehensive test suite. Written using
test-unit. And we need it NOW.

--
Emiel van de Laar

All,

This is a long post, and I hate to sound like I'm lecturing, but...

Matz's announcement of 1.8.3 beta 1 reminds me of something. We need a test suite. A large, comprehensive test suite. Written using test-unit. And we need it NOW.

I know that Chad Fowler started something along those lines (the "Rubicon" project on RubyForge). But, that was mainly a translation of RubyUnit to TestUnit. I don't think those tests were sufficient. They were also written in the 1.6.x days, making them potentially obsolete.

They're not too bad, actually.

Plus the framework handles both 1.6 and 1.8 and changes between minor/major revs quite handily.

They *do* need some loving to get up to 1.8, though.

Ryan and I are using Rubicon's Array tests for implementing MetaRuby, and have noted missing tests in the suite, these include the block form of Array#fill and no tests were present for Array#zip. I don't know if Ryan has checked in those patches yet. Its not as if the entire core library was changed when we went from 1.6 to 1.8.

While not perfect, reinventing Rubicon because Array was missing a handful of tests would be quite silly.

Another thing that concerns me is that some packages in the standard library don't appear to have any test suite. Or, at least. they aren't in the 'test' directory.

So, we need to fix this. Here's a few suggestions I have:

* Each class in the core library should have it's own directory under 'test' in the Ruby distro. Then each method should have its own test case. That's right - each *METHOD* (for the core Ruby classes).

[snip tree]

As things stand now we've got a single file for each core class, but if we write comprehensive test cases for each method, putting every test in a single file would become unwieldy. Hence the suggestion to have each method in its own file.

I don't think so:

$ ls *Array* *String* *Hash* | xargs wc -l | sort -r
     3267 total
     1363 StringBase.rb
     1224 ArrayBase.rb
      634 HashBase.rb
       16 TestString.rb
       16 TestArray.rb
       14 TestHash.rb

A 1500 line ruby file is far from unmanageable. This also reduces the benefit for people making their own Ruby implementation. Instead of looking through one file when implementing Array, they now have to look through over 100.

As an aside, I would like to see Rake included in 1.8.3 and beyond because I think it could help with automating some of these things.

Rubicon uses make and some custom C utilities. Using rake would reduce the utility for people using the test suite for alternative Ruby implementations. (JRuby uses this test suite, and so does MetaRuby.)

Having said all this, this project is just too big for one person to do in their free time. Short of someone offering me a full time salary to pursue my goal, this effort will need many volunteers.

So, here's what I think we need to do:

* Register a project on RubyForge (I'll handle that, depending on the response I get).

I think you'd be better off working on Rubicon. It has 75% of the work done for you already, has nice reports, and has many of the platform/version differences spelled out.

You'll simply be reinventing the wheel by writing your own brand-new test suite for Ruby.

* Canvas for volunteers - one person per one or two core classes/modules (ideally). See below.
* Volunteers would be responsible for writing test cases for their assigned classes/modules.

Please, don't reinvent the wheel.

* The authors of the various stdlib packages would be responsible for maintaining their own test suites, or for finding someone to handle that task for them.

I think this should be broken apart from the core libraries. It is of lesser, but equally important, utility to Ruby implementors.

* One or two people would write the online database that would handle test reports. (Perhaps a Rails or Nitro app).

Hopefully, this rant hasn't come off as condescending or rude. I'm just a little frustrated with the current state of the test suite, especially when I see just how well done the Perl test suite is. It was also motivated by the desire to submit core changes without having to provide a custom test case every time. I could submit a diff, perhaps a bug fix, and say with confidence, "Yup, still passes the test suite", to say nothing of actually finding potential bugs in the already existant code, or potentially useless code.

Anyway, if you would like to volunteer, please respond to this post or send me a personal email at djberg96 at yahoo dot com. Indicate which classes or modules you would like to be responsible for, though please limit yourself to two, max, at least initially.

If anyone feels that I am out of line, or that this is a waste of time, I'm listening.

I think you should take a serious look at Rubicon before rolling your own. Rubicon already has at least 75%, possibly 90% of the work you need already done. Save yourself lots of time and give it a little love, and you'll have something much, much better with much, much less effort.

···

On 12 May 2005, at 08:59, Daniel Berger wrote:

--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04

Bil.Kleb@NASA.gov ha scritto:

Daniel Berger wrote:

Matz's announcement of 1.8.3 beta 1 reminds me of something. We need a test suite. A large, comprehensive test suite. Written using test-unit. And we need it NOW.

I whole-heartedly agree.

I was sad to see Rubicon's luster fade, and to see "make test"
compete it's job so quick and quietly...

well there is make test-all.. but I think Daniel is saying that even it is not enough

Me too. I'm a terrible programmer, but would love to help.

···

On 5/12/05, Bil.Kleb@NASA.gov <Bil.Kleb@nasa.gov> wrote:

Daniel Berger wrote:
>
> Matz's announcement of 1.8.3 beta 1 reminds me of something. We need a
> test suite. A large, comprehensive test suite. Written using
> test-unit. And we need it NOW.

I whole-heartedly agree.

I was sad to see Rubicon's luster fade, and to see "make test"
compete it's job so quick and quietly...

A worthy goal I think. I'd love to learn something more about testing
in such a hands on exercise. I'd even skip a ruby quiz or two for this
:wink:

But, as Emiel said, only if its worthwile.

best regards,

Brian Schröder

···

On 12/05/05, Emiel van de Laar <emiel@il.fontys.nl> wrote:

* Daniel Berger (djberge@qwest.com) wrote:
> All,
>
> This is a long post, and I hate to sound like I'm lecturing, but...
>
> Matz's announcement of 1.8.3 beta 1 reminds me of something. We need a
> test suite. A large, comprehensive test suite. Written using
> test-unit. And we need it NOW.

I can go along with this. But before anyone commits too much time on this
it would be nice to know what the core developers think about this.

If I were to join this effort I'd like to know it was going to be included
in the ruby source tree.

Great effort.

Cheers,

Emiel
--
Emiel van de Laar

--
http://ruby.brian-schroeder.de/

Stringed instrument chords: http://chordlist.brian-schroeder.de/

Agreed. It would really be a waste not to use what's there. It's
probably in much better shape than you expect. And, that's thanks to
others who are _actively_ contributing to Rubicon.

By the way, I moved the project to RubyForge but I didn't create
Rubicon. It was created originally by Dave and Andy. The ideal would
be to get Rubicon included in Ruby core (Matz agreed to it--my fault
for not pushing it in at the time....anyone with commit access have
time to do that?) and have it run when you do "make test".

···

On 5/12/05, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:

On 12 May 2005, at 08:59, Daniel Berger wrote:

I think you should take a serious look at Rubicon before rolling your
own. Rubicon already has at least 75%, possibly 90% of the work you
need already done. Save yourself lots of time and give it a little
love, and you'll have something much, much better with much, much
less effort.

--

--

Chad Fowler
http://chadfowler.com

http://rubygems.rubyforge.org (over 300,000 gems served!)

Eric Hodel wrote:

<snip>

They're not too bad, actually.

Plus the framework handles both 1.6 and 1.8 and changes between minor/ major revs quite handily.

They *do* need some loving to get up to 1.8, though.

Ok, I hadn't checked the CVS repository. I only noticed that there hasn't been a new file uploaded to the project in over a year. I thought it was dead.

Ryan and I are using Rubicon's Array tests for implementing MetaRuby, and have noted missing tests in the suite, these include the block form of Array#fill and no tests were present for Array#zip. I don't know if Ryan has checked in those patches yet. Its not as if the entire core library was changed when we went from 1.6 to 1.8.

While not perfect, reinventing Rubicon because Array was missing a handful of tests would be quite silly.

I don't totally understand the way tests are written/organized in Rubicon. I'm also confused by the 'rubyunit' requirement. Isn't everything rewritten using testunit?

<snip>

As things stand now we've got a single file for each core class, but if we write comprehensive test cases for each method, putting every test in a single file would become unwieldy. Hence the suggestion to have each method in its own file.

I don't think so:

$ ls *Array* *String* *Hash* | xargs wc -l | sort -r
     3267 total
     1363 StringBase.rb
     1224 ArrayBase.rb
      634 HashBase.rb
       16 TestString.rb
       16 TestArray.rb
       14 TestHash.rb

A 1500 line ruby file is far from unmanageable. This also reduces the benefit for people making their own Ruby implementation. Instead of looking through one file when implementing Array, they now have to look through over 100.

We're talking about an extremely small number of people this would annoy. Having each method in its own file is much easier on my brain and reduces the possibility of side-effects, i.e. one test inadvertantly affecting another test.

As an aside, I would like to see Rake included in 1.8.3 and beyond because I think it could help with automating some of these things.

Rubicon uses make and some custom C utilities. Using rake would reduce the utility for people using the test suite for alternative Ruby implementations. (JRuby uses this test suite, and so does MetaRuby.)

Perhaps, but using Rake would (in theory) significantly reduce cross platform issues. The make and custom C utilties could still be left in for precisely the reasons you mention, though.

<snip>

I think you'd be better off working on Rubicon. It has 75% of the work done for you already, has nice reports, and has many of the platform/version differences spelled out.

You'll simply be reinventing the wheel by writing your own brand-new test suite for Ruby.

<snip>

I think you should take a serious look at Rubicon before rolling your own. Rubicon already has at least 75%, possibly 90% of the work you need already done. Save yourself lots of time and give it a little love, and you'll have something much, much better with much, much less effort.

Alright, I will look at Rubicon again. :slight_smile:

Regards,

Dan

···

On 12 May 2005, at 08:59, Daniel Berger wrote:

Hi,

···

In message "Re: [PROPOSAL] We need a comprehensive test suite" on Fri, 13 May 2005 04:24:49 +0900, Chad Fowler <chadfowler@gmail.com> writes:

By the way, I moved the project to RubyForge but I didn't create
Rubicon. It was created originally by Dave and Andy. The ideal would
be to get Rubicon included in Ruby core (Matz agreed to it--my fault
for not pushing it in at the time....anyone with commit access have
time to do that?) and have it run when you do "make test".

Why don't you just copy Rubicon tests in the test/ suites? Is it too
hard to do? If Chad (or anyone else) needs CVS commit access, feel
free to ask to <cvs-admin@ruby-lang.org>.

              matz.

Because I've been incredibly lazy about getting my CVS access back.
Anyone? Anyone?

I also haven't had time/focus to get it checked in and make sure it
really works right. I don't want to create a mess.

···

On 5/12/05, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

Hi,

In message "Re: [PROPOSAL] We need a comprehensive test suite" > on Fri, 13 May 2005 04:24:49 +0900, Chad Fowler <chadfowler@gmail.com> writes:

>By the way, I moved the project to RubyForge but I didn't create
>Rubicon. It was created originally by Dave and Andy. The ideal would
>be to get Rubicon included in Ruby core (Matz agreed to it--my fault
>for not pushing it in at the time....anyone with commit access have
>time to do that?) and have it run when you do "make test".

Why don't you just copy Rubicon tests in the test/ suites? Is it too
hard to do? If Chad (or anyone else) needs CVS commit access, feel
free to ask to <cvs-admin@ruby-lang.org>.

--

Chad Fowler
http://chadfowler.com

http://rubygems.rubyforge.org (over 300,000 gems served!)