using BATS as the testing implementation alienates Windows Use

[dpetzel]

The combination of BATS and LXC as the preferred testing method for this cookbook cuts off valid testing by Windows Users.

Ideally tests are written in a cross platform implementation.

[bryanwb]

I agree!
On Jul 6, 2013 4:02 AM, "dpetzel" notifications@github.com wrote:

The combination of BATS and LXC as the preferred testing method for this
cookbook cuts off valid testing by Windows Users.

Ideally tests are written in a cross platform implementation.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/45
.

[dpetzel]

@bryanwb Any thoughts what you'd like to see as the replacement?

[bryanwb]

We should use vagrant instead of lxc

but don't want to use minitest to test minitest

is there an equivalent to BATS for windows? does test-kitchen even work on
windows yet?

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:14 PM, dpetzel notifications@github.com wrote:

@bryanwb https://github.com/bryanwb Any thoughts what you'd like to see
as the replacement?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/45#issuecomment-20667310
.

[dpetzel]

I'm not aware of anything like BATS for Windows. test-kitchen does indeed work on Windows. I've been using Alpha7 for a bit now. Its not perfect, but it does work..

[dpetzel]

@bryanwb I've been thinking about this a bit, and still not sure of the best approach, but was thinking. these tests are testing the cookbook, as opposed to minitest itself. Is it out of the realm of sanity that maybe we do use minitest for this and somehow use a test cookbook to simple do some simple cookbook_file hackery?

[dpetzel]

I switched this back to using the vagrant driver and the tests are at least runnable when working on a Windows workstation (using the linux VMs). Given the lack of any equivalent, I'm going to close this out for now.