Hi, Yesterday I upgraded my RVM rubies (Ruby version manager, http://rvm.io/ ) and got a bit surpriced after the 2.0.0-head has been installed and I ran `gem list`: minitest was installed by default.
After that I have been googling a bit and here is the summary: * minitest became part of ruby stdlib in version 1.9.2 [1] * minitest kind of replaced some internals of test/unit lib * minitest supports writing of traditional unit tests and also of 'specs' (Rspec DSL style). This would allow people to write their test in prefered way and still to use single library [1] * minitest beats rspec on complexity, some statistics are available here [2] * minitest supports mocking and benchmarking * minitest developer is a Ryan Davis aka zenspider, member of seattlerb (Seattle Ruby Brigade), perhaps the most active ruby group worldwide [3] The implications for us thinking about the right choice of testing library for yast are: (please look below) Dne 12.8.2013 16:04, Ladislav Slezak napsal(a): > > Hi, > ... > Look at the current existing Yast tests. What do you like? What you don't like? > Which features you miss or need? > > > Here are my ideas, please comment, add your expectations, requirements... > > > Testing Framework Requirements > ------------------------------ > > - For programmers: The tests will be written by programmers and used by > programmers. > > Therefore we do not need any human readable language in tests (like in > Cucumber > [1]). That only adds one level of complexity for developers without much > gain. > > The tests should be easy readable without strange syntax or rules. You > should quickly see what is being tested and how from the test code. check > > - Mocking Ruby calls: During tests we need to stub and mock some method calls > to avoid touching the real system. We need to provide testing data as > a part of tests. > > We need to mock any Ruby call, the current Yast is able to mock only SCR > calls > and that's limiting and makes troubles when using other modules. check > > - Unit tests: We do only unit testing [2] in Yast (we test modules/methods > separately without any context), so unit test support is mandatory. > check > The question is if we could do more and also use integration testing [3] in > the > future. Like the installer could setup partitioning and then check > bootloader > and software proposal. That would probably need some UI support, but in some > cases it could be nice. > not sure about this > - Development tools integration: Currently we run "make check", the framework > should be easily used from make (or rake) from Yast code. > check if we consider using Rake > - OBS integration: We also run the tests during package build in OBS so we > need to > package the testing framework as a RPM package. It also needs to work in OBS > environment properly (e.g. there is no internet access, no outside > connection > is possible). check as minitest is in ruby the default now > > - Code coverage: To have good tests we need to know the code coverage to > easily find > the missing parts. simplecov as the ruby standard coverage gem supports minitest > > - Sharing framework configuration, testing code, asserts...: It should be easy > to share common parts, asserts... to avoid code duplication and make > maintenance easier. I think this shouldn't be a problem with using a single library > > - Last but not least: it should be well maintained (SLE support!), stable, > well documented... (as usual with a good software...) check as mentioned above [1] http://www.mikeperham.com/2012/09/25/minitest-ruby-1-9s-test-framework/ [2] https://gist.github.com/rjackson/5550653#file-output-txt [3] http://www.seattlerb.org/ Vlado
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
