Hi,
I want to make unit tests for my Ruby code. What are the pros and cons
of Test::Unit and RubyUnit?
Regards,
Koen
–
“I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you
looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated.”
(Paul Anderson, New Scientist)
Test::Unit is included in the Ruby standard distribution of 1.8pre2 and
will be included in future Ruby standard distributions. I use
Test::Unit and like it very much. RubyUnit came first and, therefore,
quite a few people still use it and have a lot of RubyUnit code. But I
believe Test::Unit is generally accepted as having a more
developer-friendly interface.
Regards,
Mark Wilson
On Sunday, June 22, 2003, at 05:11 PM, Koen Vervloesem wrote:
Hi,
I want to make unit tests for my Ruby code. What are the pros and cons
of Test::Unit and RubyUnit?[snip]
RubyUnit is included with Ruby-1.8.0-preview3.
Test::Unit is not.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:11:36 +0900, Koen Vervloesem wrote:
I want to make unit tests for my Ruby code. What are the pros and cons
of Test::Unit and RubyUnit?
–
Simon Strandgaard
Hi,
In message “Re: unit testing” on 03/06/23, “Simon Strandgaard” 0bz63fz3m1qt3001@sneakemail.com writes:
RubyUnit is included with Ruby-1.8.0-preview3.
Test::Unit is not.
No. test/unit is included in 1.8.0; rubyunit is not.
matz.
“Yukihiro Matsumoto” matz@ruby-lang.org schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1056381040.548029.21632.nullmailer@picachu.netlab.jp…
RubyUnit is included with Ruby-1.8.0-preview3.
Test::Unit is not.
No. test/unit is included in 1.8.0; rubyunit is not.
Personally I’d prefer to have only one of such an important core package
(and of course, that should ship with every release). Is it possible /
reasonable to merge test/unit and RubyUnit into a single package?
Regards
robert
RubyUnit is included with Ruby-1.8.0-preview3.
Test::Unit is not.
No. test/unit is included in 1.8.0; rubyunit is not.
hmmm… they both seems to be in the 1.8.0-p3 tarball ?
tar xzvf ruby-1.8.0-preview3.tar.gz
cd ruby-1.8.0/lib/
ls ru* te*
rubyunit.rb tempfile.rb
runit:
assert.rb error.rb testresult.rb topublic.rb
cui/ testcase.rb testsuite.rb
test:
unit/ unit.rb
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:10:47 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
In message “Re: unit testing” > on 03/06/23, “Simon Strandgaard” 0bz63fz3m1qt3001@sneakemail.com writes:
–
Simon Strandgaard
Simon Strandgaard wrote:
No. test/unit is included in 1.8.0; rubyunit is not.
hmmm… they both seems to be in the 1.8.0-p3 tarball ?
Look closer. At rubyunit.rb for instance.
—&<—
reserved.
require ‘runit/testcase’
require ‘test/unit’
TestCase = RUNIT::TestCase
—&<—
Looks like the only the rubyunit compatability stuff from test/unit to
me.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:10:47 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
–
([ Kent Dahl ]/)_ ~ [ Kent Dahl - Kent Dahl ]/~
))_student_/(( _d L b_/ (pre-) Master of Science in Technology )
( __õ|õ// ) )Industrial economics and technological management(
_/ö____/ (_engineering.discipline=Computer::Technology)
Hi,
In message “Re: unit testing” on 03/06/24, “Robert Klemme” bob.news@gmx.net writes:
No. test/unit is included in 1.8.0; rubyunit is not.
Personally I’d prefer to have only one of such an important core package
(and of course, that should ship with every release). Is it possible /
reasonable to merge test/unit and RubyUnit into a single package?
test/unit contains rubyunit compatible layer. So naturally, it’s
already merged.
matz.
This is in Test::Unit’s README
Masaki Suketa, for his work on RubyUnit, which filled a vital need in
the Ruby world for a very long time. I’m also grateful for his help in
polishing Test::Unit and getting the RubyUnit compatibility layer
right. His graciousness in allowing Test::Unit to supercede RubyUnit
continues to be a challenge to me to be more willing to defer my own
rights.
So it seems Test::Unit will be the only one to stay.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:37:36AM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
“Yukihiro Matsumoto” matz@ruby-lang.org schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1056381040.548029.21632.nullmailer@picachu.netlab.jp…RubyUnit is included with Ruby-1.8.0-preview3.
Test::Unit is not.
No. test/unit is included in 1.8.0; rubyunit is not.
Personally I’d prefer to have only one of such an important core package
(and of course, that should ship with every release). Is it possible /
reasonable to merge test/unit and RubyUnit into a single package?
–
_ _
__ __ | | ___ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __
'_ \ /| __/ __| '__ \ / ` | ’ \
) | (| | |__ \ | | | | | (| | | | |
.__/ _,|_|/| || ||_,|| |_|
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
“You, sir, are nothing but a pathetically lame salesdroid!
I fart in your general direction!”
– Randseed on #Linux
if I understand you correct, that
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:02:14 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
In message “Re: unit testing” > on 03/06/24, “Robert Klemme” bob.news@gmx.net writes:
No. test/unit is included in 1.8.0; rubyunit is not.
Personally I’d prefer to have only one of such an important core package
(and of course, that should ship with every release). Is it possible /
reasonable to merge test/unit and RubyUnit into a single package?test/unit contains rubyunit compatible layer. So naturally, it’s
already merged.
–
Simon Strandgaard
Test::Unit is the standard test lib.
forget runit if you don’t have an old test suite written with it.
I suppose you still have choice with the Mock stuff 
il Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:21:04 +0200, “Simon Strandgaard” 0bz63fz3m1qt3001@sneakemail.com ha scritto::
if I understand you correct, that
- rubyunit is deprecated
- test::unit is recommended ???
Thanks to all for this clarification!
robert
“gabriele renzi” surrender_it@remove.yahoo.it schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:54lefvg1jtq4d26153vnre7jebosttf9gn@4ax.com…
il Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:21:04 +0200, “Simon Strandgaard” > 0bz63fz3m1qt3001@sneakemail.com ha scritto::
if I understand you correct, that
- rubyunit is deprecated
- test::unit is recommended ???
Test::Unit is the standard test lib.
forget runit if you don’t have an old test suite written with it.
I suppose you still have choice with the Mock stuff