[Ironruby-core] compliant_on(:ruby) in RubySpecs

Jim Deville jdeville at microsoft.com
Wed Jan 7 13:57:02 EST 2009

I can check with Brian, but my understanding is as follows. The spec's are meant to be a complete packaged spec. Tag files are a convenience for using the spec's as a regression test. I feel, and I would guess this to be Brian's feelings, that when an implementation is complete (as in everything is implemented), there should not be a set of tag files for that implementation.

The other goal of the spec's is to be a spec. To that goal, you shouldn't have to go outside of the spec's to find out compliance information. Including the information into the file makes it easier to see what a specific implementation of Ruby supports. Keeping the code DRY in tests isn't as important as conveying information in those tests.


From: Shri Borde
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 12:26 AM
To: Jim Deville
Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
Subject: compliant_on(:ruby) in RubySpecs

I noticed that besides not_compliant_on to disable tests on specific Ruby implementations, there is also compliant_on to enable tests only on selected implementations. There are ~120 such instances. To make IronRuby compliant, we not only have to reduce the number of *_tags.txt files, we also have to add ":ir" to all uses of compliant_on.

However, this seems backwards. Shouldn't we try to remove most uses of compliant_on, and instead add tags for the implementations where the test does not work? There may be a few valid uses of compliant_on for tests which only work on, say, JRuby. However, only a handful of the occurrences are of this kind. The vast majoriy include :ruby which means it should be the standard.

Should it be a goal to change compliant_on so that it does not allow :ruby?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20090107/dd951031/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ironruby-core mailing list