[Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4

Jim Deville jdeville at microsoft.com
Mon Sep 29 17:05:04 EDT 2008


Sure thing


JD


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-
> bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn Narayanan
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 2:05 PM
> To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4
>
> Go ahead with it but do publish whatever you find out about git's line
> ending handling. I think my git config is screwed up as well in that
> respect.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-
> bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 1:51 PM
> To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4
>
> Srivatsn: do you see any problems, or can I go ahead with this.
>
> Peter: judging by the diff in Tomas's latest Code review, there might
> be something wrong with the script we use to generate diff's. That
> would explain the size.
>
>
> JD
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-
> > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville
> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:55 AM
> > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4
> >
> > Right now, the only reason I keep our fork of MSpec is to not force
> > everyone to change again. We are running MSpec completely unmodified.
> I
> > actually run it out of the official repo. We have some changes to
> > Rubyspec that I haven't pushed to the official repo due to lack of
> > time. After we push those we may want to follow your idea. Some of
> our
> > changes are to guards like you mention. Right now, most of the
> changes
> > I make to RubySpecs are made to the official version then pulled into
> > our repo, so I'm trying to head in that direction already.
> >
> > As for tags, I've already asked Brian (and he has agreed) to tag
> > releases, so we can have people sync to tags already.
> >
> > The tags are a powerful concept, and eventually it'd be nice to tag
> > failing tests with a unique tag, so you could run just the tests that
> > demonstrate a bug. It's fully possible, we just aren't set up for it
> > yet. I'd like to get the Rakefile cleaned up and more flexible to
> allow
> > for that.
> >
> >
> > JD
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-
> > > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin
> > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:47 AM
> > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4
> > >
> > > It is possible that the many files that are only different in
> > newlines
> > > is
> > > actually my fault.  I think that Jim integrated a load of my
> changes
> > to
> > > the
> > > rubyspecs last month but I was having newbie issues with Git and my
> > > setup
> > > changed a load of the line endings.  I have now got over this issue
> > > after
> > > some mucking about with git config.
> > >
> > > I have subsequently had these changes incorporated into the
> official
> > > rubyspec repository on github.  If the only files are ones that I
> > broke
> > > then
> > > you can just bin those commits and use the versions from the
> official
> > > github
> > > repository instead.
> > >
> > > Is there much benefit in keeping a separate fork of mspec and
> > rubyspec
> > > now
> > > anyway?  Ironruby now seems to be able to run mspec unmodified and
> > the
> > > guys
> > > who manage these projects seem happy to give responsible people
> > commit
> > > rights to the official repositories.
> > > You could apply tags to versions of rubyspec or mspec to baseline
> > > versions
> > > that are good for ironruby.
> > > In addition there are a number of guards available in mspec that
> > allow
> > > rubyspecs to be filtered based on ruby implementation and version.
> > > This is
> > > how the jruby and rubinius projects use rubyspec.
> > >
> > > In terms of tracking regression tests for a specific ironruby bug
> in
> > > rubyforge.  How about you just list the descriptions of the
> examples
> > > (i.e.
> > > "it" blocks) that fail for the bug.  It would be fairly easy to
> check
> > > that
> > > these now run ok.  In many ways the tagged rubyspec examples are a
> > > direct
> > > representation of the bugs that are still to be solved.
> > >
> > > Pete
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org
> > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn
> > > Narayanan
> > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 18:07
> > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4
> > >
> > > Using the tf diff tool, I see that a lot of files are identical
> > except
> > > for
> > > changes in newline characters (maybe \n changed to \r\n)? From my
> > > random
> > > sampling I hardly found any files that have actually changed. Maybe
> > it
> > > would
> > > help to have a guideline about the preferred newline character.
> > >
> > > Also, regarding the baselining, how are we planning to track bugs
> and
> > > their
> > > related regression tests? If we are closing a bug on rubyforge and
> > want
> > > to
> > > make sure that regression tests exist for that scenario, it would
> be
> > > good to
> > > have a link between the disabled test and the bug itself. In the
> > > IronPython
> > > testcode this is done by adding a disabled decorator to the test
> with
> > > the
> > > bug id. Here maybe a tag can have one more field to indicate the
> bug
> > > id?
> > > This is a change to the mspec runner itself and I'm not asking for
> it
> > > to be
> > > done with this shelveset but it's something to be discussed about.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org
> > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter
> Bacon
> > > Darwin
> > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:48 AM
> > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4
> > >
> > > The diff has only 94 bytes
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org
> > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim
> Deville
> > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 17:35
> > > To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers; Srivatsn Narayanan
> > > Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> > > Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4
> > >
> > > This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and Ironruby-
> > tags.
> > >
> > > tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville"
> > > Comment  :
> > >   Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick up
> > new
> > > tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ironruby-core mailing list
> > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ironruby-core mailing list
> > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ironruby-core mailing list
> > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ironruby-core mailing list
> > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core



More information about the Ironruby-core mailing list