To follow up on this thread, with the updated setup.rb file in SVN, on
Linux 8, this is what I get:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] libxml-ruby-0.7.1]$ ruby setup.rb test
Running tests...
Loaded suite test
Started
On Jul 11, 4:21 pm, "Aaron Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> IMO, it seems like more work than its worth to support the few people
> that don't have rake installed. If a user has to make sure that gcc,
> libxml, libiconv, zlib, ruby, etc are installed, why not rake?
That's not the main i
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 130 tests, 716 assertions, 1 failures, 0 errors
>>> rake aborted!
>>> Command failed with status (1): [/opt/local/bin/ruby -Ilib:test:ext
>>> "/opt/l...]
>>>
>>> (See full trace by running task with --trace)
>>> Exit 1
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Trans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 11, 3:21 pm, "Aaron Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Separate scripts are more intuitive than rake tasks?
>
> I understand what you thinking, but there are some considerations
> involved. The reason we should u
On Jul 11, 3:21 pm, "Aaron Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Separate scripts are more intuitive than rake tasks?
I understand what you thinking, but there are some considerations
involved. The reason we should use scripts rather than the Rakefile
(whether it be via the traditional setup.r
Separate scripts are more intuitive than rake tasks?
I agree with Aaron in terms of usability... though I think setup.rb
should be implemented in terms of rake tasks since setup.rb < rake
functionality. Granted that's not what exists in code -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Trans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 11, 1:45 pm, "Aaron Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> I've added a patch to the tracker that adds a test task and a build
>> task to the rake file.
>>
>> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&ai
On Jul 11, 1:45 pm, "Aaron Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've added a patch to the tracker that adds a test task and a build
> task to the rake file.
>
> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=21172&group_id...
>
> If you apply that patch, you can just execute 'rake bu
On Jul 11, 12:45 pm, "Aaron Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Not sure, I run ruby test/test_suite.rb.
>
> >> Looks like the test suite must be run from within the test directory.
> >> Otherwise test assets wi
130 tests, 716 assertions, 1 failures, 0 errors
rake aborted!
Command failed with status (1): [/opt/local/bin/ruby -Ilib:test:ext
"/opt/l...]
(See full trace by running task with --trace)
Exit 1
Yes, I think that is because of the implementation of
register_error_handler. I had fixed this in o
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Wild. Alright. It works for me out of the box. Is this trunk or before
>>> the libxml.rb patch? -sc
>>
>> setup.rb has never successfully run the tests for me, even before the
>> libxml.rb patch. I'm on OS X.
>
>
Wild. Alright. It works for me out of the box. Is this trunk or
before
the libxml.rb patch? -sc
setup.rb has never successfully run the tests for me, even before the
libxml.rb patch. I'm on OS X.
Strange. I'm OS-X and here's my output with trunk. -sc
% rake test
(in /Users/sean/src
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Can you try with just `./setup.rb test` ? I'm cautious about updating
>>> lib/libxml.rb simply because it's included by everything and I'm still
>>> not
>>> up to speed post-gem'ification re: path/packaging.
>>
>> [EM
Can you try with just `./setup.rb test` ? I'm cautious about
updating
lib/libxml.rb simply because it's included by everything and I'm
still not
up to speed post-gem'ification re: path/packaging.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] libxml]$ ./setup.rb test
/Users/aaron/svn/libxml/test/tc_well_formed.rb:1:in
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Ha! I just committed something nearly identical to this because I
>>> couldn't
>>> run the tests using ./setup.rb test. I didn't use the constant, however
>>> and
>>> did the File.join(...) for each open call. Anyway
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Can you try with just `./setup.rb test` ? I'm cautious about updating
> lib/libxml.rb simply because it's included by everything and I'm still not
> up to speed post-gem'ification re: path/packaging.
[EMAIL PRO
Ha! I just committed something nearly identical to this because I
couldn't
run the tests using ./setup.rb test. I didn't use the constant,
however and
did the File.join(...) for each open call. Anyway, let me know if
trunk
works for the tests for you now. -sc
The tests still do not wor
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Not sure, I run ruby test/test_suite.rb.
>>
>> Looks like the test suite must be run from within the test directory.
>> Otherwise test assets will not be found. I've added a patch to the
>> tracker that figures out whe
Not sure, I run ruby test/test_suite.rb.
Looks like the test suite must be run from within the test directory.
Otherwise test assets will not be found. I've added a patch to the
tracker that figures out where the assets directory is so that you can
run the tests from a different directory (e.g.
2008/7/10 Charlie Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Aaron Patterson wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm trying to compile and run the tests from trunk. As far as I can
>> tell, you just run setup.rb. Is that correct? The tests don't seem
>> to run for me when I do that.
>
> Not sure, I run ruby test/test
Aaron Patterson wrote:
Hi!
I'm trying to compile and run the tests from trunk. As far as I can
tell, you just run setup.rb. Is that correct? The tests don't seem
to run for me when I do that.
Not sure, I run ruby test/test_suite.rb.
I tried running the tests individually,
but it seem
Hi!
I'm trying to compile and run the tests from trunk. As far as I can
tell, you just run setup.rb. Is that correct? The tests don't seem
to run for me when I do that. I tried running the tests individually,
but it seems libxml.rb is doing a require on 'libxml_ruby.so' which
doesn't exist on
22 matches
Mail list logo
