PATCH: added new Test::Unit compiler plugin
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng
hgs at dmu.ac.uk
Tue May 11 10:34:14 EDT 2004
On Tue, 11 May 2004, Doug Kearns wrote:
> > Can this be set in individual files with modeline vim:makeprg=...
> > sort of thing?
> > > You seem to be missing my multiple previous statements that I agree that
> > > the 'efm' needs to be fixed so that it supports errors as well as
> > > failures, and it will be when I get to it, or sooner if someone else
> > > does... :-)
> > I think I'm the person who created the first version of this, but I
> > must add that having looked at it again (a while ago) I did not
> > understand how to improve it.
> We're referring to the new, partially complete, rubyunit compiler plugin
> I cobbled together which currently only works for test failures... As
Oh! Sorry -- I wasn't trying to take credit for anyone else's work,
but just trying to say I'd reached the limits of what I could do
in this area. I stand corrected. Thank you.
> for the main ruby.vim compiler, I've never had a problem with it and use
> it pretty much every day.
> I've just had a quick look and my assumption that errors were passed
> through unaltered was incorrect. Test:Unit seems to do some reformatting
> of errors which is not consistent with the failure format. So, the 'efm'
> from the ruby.vim compiler isn't going to help here.
> > > > c - you're editing the "main" file of a ruby script, and the script
> > > > is runnable with no arguments
> > >
> > > No, see above. Why does it have to be runnable with no arguments?
> > See The Selfish Class:
> > http://www.joeyoder.com/papers/patterns/Selfish/selfish.html
> An interesting read. Is it just an orthogonal musing or did I
> misunderstand Sam's point? :-) I read it to mean that the compiler was
> not usable with scripts that accepted arguments...
I thought we were talking about make working without arguments on
ruby programs, where possible.
> > i.e. it should just work, in the ideal case.
> In the case of this Test::Unit compiler, what do you think that means?
I meant, that where possible one should be able to run
make,tests,... without arguemnts, but where not possible the
diagnostics should be helpful. I now think I've dug a deep enough
hole and should stop digging!
> > > Ah, a fellow aegis user perhaps?
> > Not Aegis as in Apollo, surely?
> No, to paraphrase the mutt slogan; all SCM systems suck, but aegis sucks
> less than most...
I'll have a look at that. Thanks
More information about the vim-ruby-devel