From: Intransition on


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
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
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
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
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