Re: [ANN] minitest 5.11.2 Released

ruby-talk
1

Sorry, I felt uneasy about this for a long time, but now I decided to speak
directly.

Are you totally, clearly, 100% sure that including "%ourtool% is so much
better than %competingtool%" quote in each and every announce, README and
letter is a decent thing to do? It feels awkward.

(In fact, you include TWO of them, but the first one at least tries to mask
it under "other two" disguise.)

···

2018-01-25 22:49 GMT+02:00 Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com>:

minitest version 5.11.2 has been released!

* home: <https://github.com/seattlerb/minitest&gt;
* bugs: <https://github.com/seattlerb/minitest/issues&gt;
* rdoc: <http://docs.seattlerb.org/minitest&gt;
* vim: <https://github.com/sunaku/vim-ruby-minitest&gt;
* emacs: <https://github.com/arthurnn/minitest-emacs&gt;

minitest provides a complete suite of testing facilities supporting
TDD, BDD, mocking, and benchmarking.

    "I had a class with Jim Weirich on testing last week and we were
     allowed to choose our testing frameworks. Kirk Haines and I were
     paired up and we cracked open the code for a few test
     frameworks...

     I MUST say that minitest is *very* readable / understandable
     compared to the 'other two' options we looked at. Nicely done and
     thank you for helping us keep our mental sanity."

    -- Wayne E. Seguin

minitest/test is a small and incredibly fast unit testing framework.
It provides a rich set of assertions to make your tests clean and
readable.

minitest/spec is a functionally complete spec engine. It hooks onto
minitest/test and seamlessly bridges test assertions over to spec
expectations.

minitest/benchmark is an awesome way to assert the performance of your
algorithms in a repeatable manner. Now you can assert that your newb
co-worker doesn't replace your linear algorithm with an exponential
one!

minitest/mock by Steven Baker, is a beautifully tiny mock (and stub)
object framework.

minitest/pride shows pride in testing and adds coloring to your test
output. I guess it is an example of how to write IO pipes too. :stuck_out_tongue:

minitest/test is meant to have a clean implementation for language
implementors that need a minimal set of methods to bootstrap a working
test suite. For example, there is no magic involved for test-case
discovery.

    "Again, I can't praise enough the idea of a testing/specing
     framework that I can actually read in full in one sitting!"

    -- Piotr Szotkowski

Comparing to rspec:

    rspec is a testing DSL. minitest is ruby.

    -- Adam Hawkins, "Bow Before MiniTest"

minitest doesn't reinvent anything that ruby already provides, like:
classes, modules, inheritance, methods. This means you only have to
learn ruby to use minitest and all of your regular OO practices like
extract-method refactorings still apply.

Changes:

### 5.11.2 / 2018-01-25

* 1 minor enhancement:

  * Reversed Test < Result. Back to < Runnable and using Reportable for
shared code.

* 2 bug fixes:

  * Fixed Result#location for instances of Test. (alexisbernard)
  * Fixed deprecation message for Runnable#marshal_dump. (y-yagi)

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

2

Sorry, I felt uneasy about this for a long time, but now I decided to speak directly.

Are you totally, clearly, 100% sure that including "%ourtool% is so much better than %competingtool%" quote in each and every announce, README and letter is a decent thing to do? It feels awkward.

Suggestion: put the changelog at the top of the mail instead of the bottom. For a new release, that’s what people need to know. From my point of view, anything beneath the changelog I can read or ignore as I choose…

Click here to view Company Information and Confidentiality Notice.<http://www.jameshall.co.uk/index.php/small-print/email-disclaimer&gt;

3

Hello,

   first thanks for your great ruby libraries too (infoboxer, reality,
etc). Big fan of all things turning the wikipedia into structured
text.

Are you totally, clearly, 100% sure that including "%ourtool% is so much better than %competingtool%"
quote in each and every announce, README and letter is a decent thing to do? It feels awkward.

   I know you're not asking me. Here's my opinion: if you want to have
progress you have to speak out what's not working or why it's better
than X.

     So yes, I'm all for including the great quotes. If you love rspec
so much you have to deal with that others might love / use something
simpler even if you don't understand why :-). Of course, I see no
value in rspec (gerkin, etc.) too so I'm biased but for people
enjoying extra complexity / layers I understand why. Live and let
live.

    Cheers.

4

I too found this a bit awkward, especially given that I disagree with some
of the assertions being made.

It's a library, it solve a technical problem, or it doesn't.

We should encourage people to find what works best for their situation.

We should encourage objectivity and diversity, not simply following the
opinions of others.

5

We should encourage objectivity and diversity, not simply following the opinions of others.

Using asserts or rspec is a matter of taste, and, thus, opinions. It
is silly and ironic if you prefer rspec to ask for other opinions to
be censored while proclaiming that you encourage obejectivity and
diversity ?!

And yes, that's the point - if you feel awkward when you see
different opinions - learn to accept diversity. Cheers.

6

Wow that escalated quickly.

Problem is not "opinions" and not "diversity".

Problem is that:

1. of all popular gems, minitest is the ONLY one that claims "we are better
than %specific competitor%" in the very gem description, and in each and
every announce, and generally in every mention. ROM doesn't have "we are so
much superior to AR" on the top of their pages, Hanami doesn't do that
about Rails, neither of HTTP clients, even those claiming to be "superior
to all others" doesn't tend to mention which exactly competitor they
neglect, and so on. It is ONLY minitest that does so.

2. This is a very tongue-in-cheek statement because it is like "quotes of
what others say", so it is probably "objective, not stated by library
authors". When, in fact, it is just some damn random quotes. Neither of
minitest docs and supplemental materials give a clue about supporting that
bold and rude statement, they are just about "simple & clean" (and here are
100+ extensions if it is not simple and clean enough for you, and there is
also loose RSpec 2 rip-off, that is somehow better because it is). When ROM
guys are sure AR is bad and should be superseded, they provide the calm
theory on ORM idea in total (without mentioning any particular library):
ROM - Introduction, and then side-by-side
migration guide from AR:
ROM - Compared to ActiveRecord -- avoiding "WE ARE
SO MUCH BETTER" statements.

What MiniTest does, will be more honest (preserving the statement and
intonation) with just bold letters "Haha %@$*% RSpec you are retarded. Suck
my hairy %#$@%!" at the top of README and every announce.

That's the problem.

···

2018-01-26 13:49 GMT+02:00 Gerald Bauer <gerald.bauer@gmail.com>:

> We should encourage objectivity and diversity, not simply following the
opinions of others.

Using asserts or rspec is a matter of taste, and, thus, opinions. It
is silly and ironic if you prefer rspec to ask for other opinions to
be censored while proclaiming that you encourage obejectivity and
diversity ?!

And yes, that's the point - if you feel awkward when you see
different opinions - learn to accept diversity. Cheers.

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

7

Hello Victor Shepelev ,

   Again I'm a big fan of your gems (infoboxer, reality, etc.). Keep
up the great work.

   Reading your blog posts on minitest [1] it is clear that you are a
respec fanboy and minitest hater, thus, ...

    you're NOT a neutral observer and obviously biased. Your
statements look self-serving pushing the rspec agenda, that it's
better hipster way etc.

   Just saying. Cheers.

[1] http://zverok.github.io/blog/2016-10-09-minitest.html

8

Gerald, sorry, how the fact that I am "biased" (I imagine this argument in
scientific disputes: "You are biased towards Earth Is Round idea, so you
are not qualified to discuss it!") changes the facts that MiniTest authors
are the only popular gem authors including "We are better than %specific
competitor name%" in Readme and gem description and every announce?

If we are struggling for a nice and *diverse* community, isn't this just
mean and destructive for the community?

PS: The whole language of "fanboys", "haters", "hipster way", "pushing
agenda" does not look that appropriate for grown-ups discussion. Just
saying.

···

2018-01-26 14:48 GMT+02:00 Gerald Bauer <gerald.bauer@gmail.com>:

Hello Victor Shepelev ,

   Again I'm a big fan of your gems (infoboxer, reality, etc.). Keep
up the great work.

   Reading your blog posts on minitest [1] it is clear that you are a
respec fanboy and minitest hater, thus, ...

    you're NOT a neutral observer and obviously biased. Your
statements look self-serving pushing the rspec agenda, that it's
better hipster way etc.

   Just saying. Cheers.

[1] MiniTest is not "Just Ruby", it is "Just Rails"

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

9

What about letting devs decide wether the popularity of a gem is because of
the language used in its promotion or its actual utility, and not try to
push for whatever we think it's a better marketing campaign.

I agree that the promotion is very tongue in cheek, but on the other side,
I'm not the one (neither should you) to impose canons on marketing
standards.

Nobody likes holy wars.

···

--
Feña

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Victor Shepelev <zverok.offline@gmail.com> wrote:

Gerald, sorry, how the fact that I am "biased" (I imagine this argument in
scientific disputes: "You are biased towards Earth Is Round idea, so you
are not qualified to discuss it!") changes the facts that MiniTest authors
are the only popular gem authors including "We are better than %specific
competitor name%" in Readme and gem description and every announce?

If we are struggling for a nice and *diverse* community, isn't this just
mean and destructive for the community?

PS: The whole language of "fanboys", "haters", "hipster way", "pushing
agenda" does not look that appropriate for grown-ups discussion. Just
saying.

2018-01-26 14:48 GMT+02:00 Gerald Bauer <gerald.bauer@gmail.com>:

Hello Victor Shepelev ,

   Again I'm a big fan of your gems (infoboxer, reality, etc.). Keep
up the great work.

   Reading your blog posts on minitest [1] it is clear that you are a
respec fanboy and minitest hater, thus, ...

    you're NOT a neutral observer and obviously biased. Your
statements look self-serving pushing the rspec agenda, that it's
better hipster way etc.

   Just saying. Cheers.

[1] MiniTest is not "Just Ruby", it is "Just Rails"

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

10

+1

···

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Feña Agar <ferliagno@gmail.com> wrote:

What about letting devs decide wether the popularity of a gem is because
of the language used in its promotion or its actual utility, and not try to
push for whatever we think it's a better marketing campaign.

I agree that the promotion is very tongue in cheek, but on the other side,
I'm not the one (neither should you) to impose canons on marketing
standards.

Nobody likes holy wars.

--
Feña

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Victor Shepelev <zverok.offline@gmail.com > > wrote:

Gerald, sorry, how the fact that I am "biased" (I imagine this argument
in scientific disputes: "You are biased towards Earth Is Round idea, so you
are not qualified to discuss it!") changes the facts that MiniTest authors
are the only popular gem authors including "We are better than %specific
competitor name%" in Readme and gem description and every announce?

If we are struggling for a nice and *diverse* community, isn't this just
mean and destructive for the community?

PS: The whole language of "fanboys", "haters", "hipster way", "pushing
agenda" does not look that appropriate for grown-ups discussion. Just
saying.

2018-01-26 14:48 GMT+02:00 Gerald Bauer <gerald.bauer@gmail.com>:

Hello Victor Shepelev ,

   Again I'm a big fan of your gems (infoboxer, reality, etc.). Keep
up the great work.

   Reading your blog posts on minitest [1] it is clear that you are a
respec fanboy and minitest hater, thus, ...

    you're NOT a neutral observer and obviously biased. Your
statements look self-serving pushing the rspec agenda, that it's
better hipster way etc.

   Just saying. Cheers.

[1] MiniTest is not "Just Ruby", it is "Just Rails"

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

11

Seems silly to me (and a waste of time) to be so sensitive about a creator’s description of their work - whether it is quotes or their actual opinion.

But, if you have time to waste and argue about something insignificant, I guess it’s something to do…

Have fun!

···

On Jan 26, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Allen Maxwell <aamaxworks@gmail.com> wrote:

+1

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Feña Agar <ferliagno@gmail.com <mailto:ferliagno@gmail.com>> wrote:
What about letting devs decide wether the popularity of a gem is because of the language used in its promotion or its actual utility, and not try to push for whatever we think it's a better marketing campaign.

I agree that the promotion is very tongue in cheek, but on the other side, I'm not the one (neither should you) to impose canons on marketing standards.

Nobody likes holy wars.

--
Feña

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Victor Shepelev <zverok.offline@gmail.com <mailto:zverok.offline@gmail.com>> wrote:
Gerald, sorry, how the fact that I am "biased" (I imagine this argument in scientific disputes: "You are biased towards Earth Is Round idea, so you are not qualified to discuss it!") changes the facts that MiniTest authors are the only popular gem authors including "We are better than %specific competitor name%" in Readme and gem description and every announce?

If we are struggling for a nice and diverse community, isn't this just mean and destructive for the community?

PS: The whole language of "fanboys", "haters", "hipster way", "pushing agenda" does not look that appropriate for grown-ups discussion. Just saying.

2018-01-26 14:48 GMT+02:00 Gerald Bauer <gerald.bauer@gmail.com <mailto:gerald.bauer@gmail.com>>:
Hello Victor Shepelev ,

   Again I'm a big fan of your gems (infoboxer, reality, etc.). Keep
up the great work.

   Reading your blog posts on minitest [1] it is clear that you are a
respec fanboy and minitest hater, thus, ...

    you're NOT a neutral observer and obviously biased. Your
statements look self-serving pushing the rspec agenda, that it's
better hipster way etc.

   Just saying. Cheers.

[1] MiniTest is not "Just Ruby", it is "Just Rails"

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org>?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org>?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org>?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk&gt;

12

Hello Victor,

  Again thanks for great a ruby gems (infoboxer, reality, etc.)

You are biased towards Earth Is Round idea, so you are not qualified to discuss it!")

   Of course you can discuss it - I'm saying asking Galileo Galilei to
rewrite the text to state your opinion (about the earth being flat
:-)) is silly.

are the only popular gem authors including "We are better than

   Let's look at the puma gem -> http://puma.io

   Unlike other Ruby Webservers, Puma was built for speed and parallelism.

   Is this saying tha Puma is better or not :slight_smile: ? Let's look at the
helpful chart - naming names! Poor little Rainbows and Unicorns.

   And so on.

   All the best. Greetings from Vienna. Enjoy the weekend. Cheers. Prost.