Proposing a Ruby Packaging Standard
in [Ruby]
|
Prev: how to redirect to a url that is stored inside a variable
Next: Using variables defined in configuration files
From: Intransition on 21 Apr 2010 16:04 On Apr 21, 2:50 pm, Luis Lavena <luislav...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 2:07 pm, Damian Janowski <damian.janow...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > [...] > > > Under Tests, should there be a standard for running the entire test > > suite? Say, `rake`? > > That would trigger other dependencies developers might have in their > rake tasks (like coverage, documentation, mutation testing, etc.) > > I simple "ruby -Ilib test/test*.rb" should suffice, right? Depends on the testing framework. Some do not support autorun. Some tests aren't located in test/. For most 'rake test' is the common practice, but as someone who does not use rake I have at times wondered how best to approach this myself. It's not a huge issue really, since only developers tend to actually run the tests and whatever system used it's not too hard for developers to figure out. On occasion though I have provided a ruby executable called 'script/ test' to handle it.
From: James Britt on 21 Apr 2010 16:48 Luis Lavena wrote: > On Apr 21, 2:07 pm, Damian Janowski <damian.janow...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> [...] >> >> Under Tests, should there be a standard for running the entire test >> suite? Say, `rake`? > > That would trigger other dependencies developers might have in their > rake tasks (like coverage, documentation, mutation testing, etc.) > > I simple "ruby -Ilib test/test*.rb" should suffice, right? I have some Rakefiles where the default task is to list the tasks. In other cases a I set it to run the test tool of choice (sometimes bacon, something rspec, it varies). If I were to want a default default (so to speak) I'd prefer the task listing rather than kicking off something. It's easy enough to change to suit one's personal preferences. Or leave the Rakefile with no default task. -- James Britt www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff www.neurogami.com - Smart application development
From: James Edward Gray II on 21 Apr 2010 16:59 On Apr 21, 2010, at 3:48 PM, James Britt wrote: > If I were to want a default default (so to speak) I'd prefer the task listing rather than kicking off something. I don't think I'm for recommending a default, but listing the tasks definitely wouldn't be my first choice. That's a function of Rake itself (rake -T), so I would hate to waste a task on it. That's just my opinion. James Edward Gray II
From: John Barnette on 21 Apr 2010 17:59 All, The purpose of Christian's is to provide a minimal, consistent, and *tool agnostic* set of guidelines for organizing your Ruby library. If the changes or additions you're suggesting assume the presence of any tool *other than Ruby itself*, you're almost certainly bikeshedding. Please give your suggestions some heavy thought before posting. ~ j.
From: James Britt on 21 Apr 2010 19:30
James Edward Gray II wrote: > On Apr 21, 2010, at 3:48 PM, James Britt wrote: > >> If I were to want a default default (so to speak) I'd prefer the task listing rather than kicking off something. > > I don't think I'm for recommending a default, but listing the tasks definitely wouldn't be my first choice. That's a function of Rake itself (rake -T), so I would hate to waste a task on it. That's just my opinion. > Yeah, it's not like it isn't already there, it's just that if I type 'rake', I'd rather something useful but benign happen instead of a message about there being no 'default' defined. But either way I don't want to inadvertently kick off some potentially lengthy process. -- James Britt www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff www.neurogami.com - Smart application development |