hola! vlado brought up an interesting topic, namely the choice of a unit-testing framework. there's a bunch of them written for ruby code, some of the most popular ones (presented in no particular order) are:
* minitest http://rubydoc.info/gems/minitest/frames * rspec http://rspec.info/ * shoulda http://rubydoc.info/gems/shoulda/frames * Test::Unit http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib-1.9.3/libdoc/test/unit/rdoc/Test/Unit.html see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_testing_frameworks_for_Ruby for a pretty good overview. i have no strong preference or dislike for any of them, with the exception of rspec, which creates methods on the CUT (to be clear: i don't like that). but before we dive into a massive flamewar re: which one is the best, there's another topic to chew on: do we need to standardize this at all? as far as i understand the situation, yast modules are mostly silos with one or two people ever hacking on any given module. this arrangement would lend weight to the argument that no, we don't need to standardize on a single unit-testing framework, each maintainer is free to choose whatever they like most. OTOH, strong code-ownership has its downsides, so maybe, unless we want to make the segregation of interests stronger, we should not move the code further apart. a standard test framework would make it easier to move code between modules, eg. utility functions initially written for a specific yast module getting promoted to ruby-bindings or something. opinions? -- roman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
