From djberg96 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 19 21:29:49 2011
From: djberg96 at gmail.com (Daniel Berger)
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:29:49 -0700
Subject: [test-unit-users-en:00035] Instance variables freed?
Message-ID: <4D379E1D.10505@gmail.com>

Hi,

I saw this:

http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2742-the-road-to-faster-tests#extended

Does test-unit 2 automatically free instance variables created in setup? 
If not, should it?

Regards,

Dan

From kou at cozmixng.org  Thu Jan 20 09:19:13 2011
From: kou at cozmixng.org (Kouhei Sutou)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 23:19:13 +0900 (JST)
Subject: [test-unit-users-en:00036] Re: Instance variables freed?
In-Reply-To: <4D379E1D.10505@gmail.com>
References: <4D379E1D.10505@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110120.231913.627232544039153231.kou@cozmixng.org>

Hi,

In <4D379E1D.10505 at gmail.com>
  "[test-unit-users-en:00035] Instance variables freed?" on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:29:49 -0700,
  Daniel Berger <djberg96 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I saw this:
> 
> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2742-the-road-to-faster-tests#extended
> 
> Does test-unit 2 automatically free instance variables
> created in setup? If not, should it?

What about this?

  class TestString < Test::Unit::TestCase
    class << self
      def startup
        @@variable1 = ...
        @@variable2 = ...
        @@variable3 = ...
      end
    end

    def setup
      ...
    end

    def test_xxx
      assert_zzz(..., @@variable1.yyy)
    end
  end

Or we need to use @instance_variable instead of
@@class_variable?


Thanks,
--
kou

From dberger at globe.gov  Thu Jan 20 10:22:19 2011
From: dberger at globe.gov (Daniel Berger)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:22:19 -0700
Subject: [test-unit-users-en:00037] Re: Instance variables freed?
In-Reply-To: <20110120.231913.627232544039153231.kou@cozmixng.org>
Message-ID: <C95DA13B.802A%dberger@globe.gov>




On 1/20/11 7:19 AM, "Kouhei Sutou" <kou at cozmixng.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In <4D379E1D.10505 at gmail.com>
>   "[test-unit-users-en:00035] Instance variables freed?" on Wed, 19 Jan 2011
> 19:29:49 -0700,
>   Daniel Berger <djberg96 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I saw this:
>> 
>> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2742-the-road-to-faster-tests#extended
>> 
>> Does test-unit 2 automatically free instance variables
>> created in setup? If not, should it?
> 
> What about this?
> 
>   class TestString < Test::Unit::TestCase
>     class << self
>       def startup
>         @@variable1 = ...
>         @@variable2 = ...
>         @@variable3 = ...
>       end
>     end
> 
>     def setup
>       ...
>     end
> 
>     def test_xxx
>       assert_zzz(..., @@variable1.yyy)
>     end
>   end
> 
> Or we need to use @instance_variable instead of
> @@class_variable?

This diff is based on a comment from the article:

--- lib/test/unit/testsuite.rb    (revision 346)
+++ lib/test/unit/testsuite.rb    (working copy)

-      # Runs the tests and/or suites contained in this
-      # TestSuite.
+      # Runs the tests and/or suites contained in this TestSuite.
       def run(result, &progress_block)
         yield(STARTED, name)
         run_startup(result)
-        @tests.each do |test|
+        while test = @tests.shift
           test.run(result, &progress_block)
         end
         run_shutdown(result)
@@ -59,7 +58,7 @@
         @tests.each { |test| total_size += test.size }
         total_size
       end

I'd have to run perftools to validate that it actually saves on memory, but
all tests do pass with that change. I'm also not sure if this negatively
impacts the "size" method.

Regards,

Dan



From dberger at globe.gov  Thu Jan 20 10:03:12 2011
From: dberger at globe.gov (Daniel Berger)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:03:12 -0700
Subject: [test-unit-users-en:00038] Re: Instance variables freed?
In-Reply-To: <20110120.231913.627232544039153231.kou@cozmixng.org>
Message-ID: <C95D9CC0.8026%dberger@globe.gov>




On 1/20/11 7:19 AM, "Kouhei Sutou" <kou at cozmixng.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In <4D379E1D.10505 at gmail.com>
>   "[test-unit-users-en:00035] Instance variables freed?" on Wed, 19 Jan 2011
> 19:29:49 -0700,
>   Daniel Berger <djberg96 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I saw this:
>> 
>> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2742-the-road-to-faster-tests#extended
>> 
>> Does test-unit 2 automatically free instance variables
>> created in setup? If not, should it?
> 
> What about this?
> 
>   class TestString < Test::Unit::TestCase
>     class << self
>       def startup
>         @@variable1 = ...
>         @@variable2 = ...
>         @@variable3 = ...
>       end
>     end
> 
>     def setup
>       ...
>     end
> 
>     def test_xxx
>       assert_zzz(..., @@variable1.yyy)
>     end
>   end
> 
> Or we need to use @instance_variable instead of
> @@class_variable?

I'm not sure what you mean. That would then require that we cleanup the
class variables, wouldn't it? Anyway, that would require rewriting too many
tests.

Dan



From kou at cozmixng.org  Thu Jan 20 18:07:34 2011
From: kou at cozmixng.org (Kouhei Sutou)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:07:34 +0900 (JST)
Subject: [test-unit-users-en:00039] Re: Instance variables freed?
In-Reply-To: <C95D9CC0.8026%dberger@globe.gov>
References: <20110120.231913.627232544039153231.kou@cozmixng.org>
	<C95D9CC0.8026%dberger@globe.gov>
Message-ID: <20110121.080734.283348358682359719.kou@cozmixng.org>

Hi,

In <C95D9CC0.8026%dberger at globe.gov>
  "[test-unit-users-en:00038] Re: Instance variables freed?" on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:03:12 -0700,
  Daniel Berger <dberger at globe.gov> wrote:

>> In <4D379E1D.10505 at gmail.com>
>>   "[test-unit-users-en:00035] Instance variables freed?" on Wed, 19 Jan 2011
>> 19:29:49 -0700,
>>   Daniel Berger <djberg96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I saw this:
>>> 
>>> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2742-the-road-to-faster-tests#extended
>>> 
>>> Does test-unit 2 automatically free instance variables
>>> created in setup? If not, should it?
>> 
>> What about this?

> I'm not sure what you mean. That would then require that we cleanup the
> class variables, wouldn't it? Anyway, that would require rewriting too many
> tests.

I'm so sorry... I misunderstood the original article...


Thanks,
--
kou

From kou at cozmixng.org  Thu Jan 20 18:09:39 2011
From: kou at cozmixng.org (Kouhei Sutou)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:09:39 +0900 (JST)
Subject: [test-unit-users-en:00040] Re: Instance variables freed?
In-Reply-To: <C95DA13B.802A%dberger@globe.gov>
References: <20110120.231913.627232544039153231.kou@cozmixng.org>
	<C95DA13B.802A%dberger@globe.gov>
Message-ID: <20110121.080939.1866864107557511460.kou@cozmixng.org>

Hi,

In <C95DA13B.802A%dberger at globe.gov>
  "[test-unit-users-en:00037] Re: Instance variables freed?" on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:22:19 -0700,
  Daniel Berger <dberger at globe.gov> wrote:

> This diff is based on a comment from the article:

It seems good for me.

> I'd have to run perftools to validate that it actually saves on memory, but
> all tests do pass with that change. I'm also not sure if this negatively
> impacts the "size" method.

What aboud this? It doesn't break the "size" method after
the "run" method.

Index: testsuite.rb
===================================================================
--- testsuite.rb	(revision 346)
+++ testsuite.rb	(working copy)
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
         @name = name
         @tests = []
         @test_case = test_case
+        @n_tests = 0
       end
 
       # Runs the tests and/or suites contained in this
@@ -34,7 +35,8 @@
       def run(result, &progress_block)
         yield(STARTED, name)
         run_startup(result)
-        @tests.each do |test|
+        while test = @tests.shift
+          @n_tests += test.size
           test.run(result, &progress_block)
         end
         run_shutdown(result)
@@ -55,7 +57,7 @@
       # i.e. if the suite contains other suites, it counts the
       # tests within those suites, not the suites themselves.
       def size
-        total_size = 0
+        total_size = @n_tests
         @tests.each { |test| total_size += test.size }
         total_size
       end


Thanks,
--
kou

From djberg96 at gmail.com  Thu Jan 20 20:33:57 2011
From: djberg96 at gmail.com (Daniel Berger)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:33:57 -0700
Subject: [test-unit-users-en:00041] Re: Instance variables freed?
In-Reply-To: <20110121.080939.1866864107557511460.kou@cozmixng.org>
References: <20110120.231913.627232544039153231.kou@cozmixng.org>	<C95DA13B.802A%dberger@globe.gov>
	<20110121.080939.1866864107557511460.kou@cozmixng.org>
Message-ID: <4D38E285.3080008@gmail.com>

On 1/20/11 4:09 PM, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In<C95DA13B.802A%dberger at globe.gov>
>    "[test-unit-users-en:00037] Re: Instance variables freed?" on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:22:19 -0700,
>    Daniel Berger<dberger at globe.gov>  wrote:
>
>> This diff is based on a comment from the article:
>
> It seems good for me.
>
>> I'd have to run perftools to validate that it actually saves on memory, but
>> all tests do pass with that change. I'm also not sure if this negatively
>> impacts the "size" method.
>
> What aboud this? It doesn't break the "size" method after
> the "run" method.
>
> Index: testsuite.rb
> ===================================================================
> --- testsuite.rb	(revision 346)
> +++ testsuite.rb	(working copy)
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>           @name = name
>           @tests = []
>           @test_case = test_case
> +        @n_tests = 0
>         end
>
>         # Runs the tests and/or suites contained in this
> @@ -34,7 +35,8 @@
>         def run(result,&progress_block)
>           yield(STARTED, name)
>           run_startup(result)
> -        @tests.each do |test|
> +        while test = @tests.shift
> +          @n_tests += test.size

I'm not that familiar with the API. Should it be "+= test.size" or "+= 
1"? Just checking.

But, once that's determined, it looks good to me.

Regards,

Dan

From kou at cozmixng.org  Fri Jan 21 10:04:05 2011
From: kou at cozmixng.org (Kouhei Sutou)
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:04:05 +0900 (JST)
Subject: [test-unit-users-en:00042] Re: Instance variables freed?
In-Reply-To: <4D38E285.3080008@gmail.com>
References: <C95DA13B.802A%dberger@globe.gov>
	<20110121.080939.1866864107557511460.kou@cozmixng.org>
	<4D38E285.3080008@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110122.000405.1707606133133793812.kou@cozmixng.org>

Hi,

In <4D38E285.3080008 at gmail.com>
  "[test-unit-users-en:00041] Re: Instance variables freed?" on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:33:57 -0700,
  Daniel Berger <djberg96 at gmail.com> wrote:

>> What aboud this? It doesn't break the "size" method after
>> the "run" method.
>>
>> Index: testsuite.rb
>> ===================================================================
>> --- testsuite.rb	(revision 346)
>> +++ testsuite.rb	(working copy)
>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>>           @name = name
>>           @tests = []
>>           @test_case = test_case
>> +        @n_tests = 0
>>         end
>>
>>         # Runs the tests and/or suites contained in this
>> @@ -34,7 +35,8 @@
>>         def run(result,&progress_block)
>>           yield(STARTED, name)
>>           run_startup(result)
>> -        @tests.each do |test|
>> +        while test = @tests.shift
>> +          @n_tests += test.size
> 
> I'm not that familiar with the API. Should it be "+=
> test.size" or "+= 1"? Just checking.

"+= test.size" is right because "test" may have sub-tests.

> But, once that's determined, it looks good to me.

Thanks for confirming.
I've committed it into trunk.

--
kou