Ruby: Authoring kata #252
Ruby: Authoring kata #252
Conversation
| To avoid the above problems, calls to assertion functions should respect the following rules: | ||
| - The expected value should be calculated _before_ invoking an assertion. The `expected` parameter passed to the assertion should not be a lambda/`Proc`/block, but a value calculated directly beforehand. | ||
| - Appropriate assertion functions should be used for each given test. `Test.assert_equals` is not suitable in all situations. Use `Test.expect` for tests on boolean values, and `Test.expect_error` to test error handling. | ||
| <!-- Use `Test.assert_approx_equals` for floating-point comparisons --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would explicitly mention that there's no assertion for approx equality, because it's somewhat unexpected IMO. Every sane assertions library has it. Snippet is a great idea, just mention it here and link to it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can add the snippet to the test framework (https://github.com/codewars/ruby-test-framework) that will be used for Ruby 3.0 support. I'm also considering to use RSpec under the hood somehow, then eventually switch to it completely like JS.
content/languages/ruby/authoring.md
Outdated
| - Avoid returning different data types depending on the situation (_"Return the result, or the string 'Error' if no result can be found..."_). Ruby is dynamically typed, which is not the case for some other languages. Returning `nil` might be appropriate in some situations, but throwing an error might be better in others. | ||
|
|
||
| Some kata just should not be translated into Ruby because it can be difficult to keep their initial idea: | ||
| - Some kata might be meant for another language specifically. For example, a kata about `Python: Learning Classes` should probably not be translated to Ruby, even though Ruby has `class` syntax. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't feel like it's evident. I practice both (well, not much ruby, yeah, but still) and I honestly don't see why this should be avoided in ruby => ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You probably could, but you'd want to change the kata title at least, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh... But if it's only about the title, I feel the reason is out of place, then (but maybe it's just me being oriented by what I knew will follow...?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I just need a better example of something that shouldn't... any ideas?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe something what does not translate well into hashes, or duck typing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can technically do duck typing in Ruby...
Maybe like something about JS coercion? Ruby doesn't have coercion (yay).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Damn I am so noob in Ruby I have no idea what could apply here.
Maybe dudner methods? Coercion sounds good too.
Maybe just leave this out?
I KNOW! Performance kata do not translate well into Ruby! :D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dunder methods sounds right.
| - Some kata might be meant for another language specifically. For example, a kata about `Python: Learning Classes` should probably not be translated to Ruby, even though Ruby has `class` syntax. | |
| - Some kata might be meant for another language specifically. For example, a kata about `Python: Dunder Methods` should probably not be translated to Ruby, as Ruby doesn't have dunder methods. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
don't ruby classes have def coerce(self,other) mehtods? x)
even dunder methods are a bit edgy because some exist in ruby =, +, ...
maybe step out of python, for this? like "learn the difference int/long" in java/C/... doesn't translate to ruby.
?
Co-authored-by: hobovsky <hobson@wp.pl>
hobovsky
left a comment
hobovsky
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me, but I am no Ruby expert so maybe someone else could also take a look.
kazk
left a comment
kazk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me. Thanks for writing this.
By the way, I'm considering to replace the custom test framework with the built-in minitest from Ruby 3.0. I'm still experimenting, but it should work the same way except for assertions, so this will be still relevant.
Discussion: #215
Deploy preview: https://deploy-preview-252--reverent-edison-2864ea.netlify.app/languages/ruby/authoring/