[rspec-devel] dogfood time?

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Sat Oct 14 15:46:14 EDT 2006


On 10/14/06, Brian Takita <brian.takita at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/14/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/11/06, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/11/06, Dave Astels <dastels at daveastels.com> wrote:
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10-Oct-06, at 10:27 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A while ago I brought up the idea of making RSpec self-hosting. I.e.
> > > > > completely ditch RSpec's own Test::Unit tests and use RSpec to
> verify
> > > > > itself during the build process.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the counter arguments that came up (I think it was Dave) was
> > > > > "what if we have bugs that get masked".
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that at this point RSpec core is mature enough to make it
> > > > > worth the risk. I think the risk of having masked bugs is minimal -
> I
> > > > > think we'd discover it quickly if it happened.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think? Is it time to trust our own tool and eat our own
> > > > > dogfood?
> > > > > (We'd check in the test2spec generated translations, reformat them
> and
> > > > > delete the Test::Unit tests plus test2spec)
> > > >
> > > > I think you're right that it's ready for that now.
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > One word of caution on this. There are test/unit tests that don't get
> > > translated in the build because they test things like the ability of
> > > partial mocks to attach themselves to the Specification that is
> > > current running. When running a Specification INSIDE a Specification,
> > > the mocks attach themselves to the wrong spec. So this area will need
> > > to be restructured such that we can translate all of the specs before
> > > we follow through on this.
> > >
> >
> > I have created branches/dogfood for this. Work done so far:
> >
> > * Checked in translated specs under the specs folder
> > * Translated by hand specs that didn't translate (mock_spec.rb,
> > context_spec.rb and a couple of others)
> > * Deleted test2spec and all references in the doco and the Rakefile
> > * Code coverage is now up from 95.8% to 98.3%
>
> Awesome.
>
> > Remaining work:
> > * Delete the Test::Unit tests
> > * Replace curlies with do/end (A regexp search/replace should do fine)
> > * Indent/reformat the specs so they look nice.
>
> Was it difficult to do? Are there any rough areas?
>
> > Does anyone know of a tool that can format badly formatted ruby code
> nicely?
>
>
> Eclipse RDT? Textmate?
>
> > I'd like to get this back to trunk as soon as possible to avoid
> > divergence. Any objections if I merge back before we've sorted the
> > curlies/formatting issues?
>
> That sounds like a good idea.

+1


>
> > Aslak
> >
> > > That said, I love the idea of rspec spec'ing itself.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-devel mailing list
> > > rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-devel mailing list
> > rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>
>


More information about the rspec-devel mailing list