On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Satoshi Asakawa wrote:
[...]
> @all,
[...]
> Is it possible to add the unit testing functonality as the following to
> Shoes?
>
> - Make it possible to start a Shoes app from Ruby. (Without having to type
> "Shoes my_app.rb"; just "ruby my_app.rb") As long as that is not possible,
I do this all the time:
<example>
#!shoes
Shoes.app do
para("Boo!")
end
__END__
</example>
That example file has #!shoes on its first line. It will be a .rb script.
Shells will see it has a #! line and pass it to shoes.
Windows will see it has a .rb extension, pass it to ruby, which will see
the #! line and pass it to shoes. I double click on shoes apps and ruby
apps alike as a result of this. The only problem is that the icons for
a shoes app show up as being ruby apps. Which may not be a problem.
Now, from within Ruby code you could %x(thingy.rb) and this would get
interpreted by the shell and thus end up being run by shoes.
> you can't really startup a Shoes app from the inside of a unit test. (You
> could call a Shoes app with the backticks, but then you wouldn't have a
> reference to the app object, I think.)
If it is in a separate process. But you should be able to put unit tests
inside the shoes app, the difficulty is getting the namespacing right.
>
> How about this idea? Is it possible or impossible?
>
> Regards,
> ashbb
>
>
Hugh
