Python tests ported

[VorontsovIE]

Old test moved to test_docopt_rb.rb (class DocoptTest renamed to DocoptRbTest) -
but they fails due to absence of example.rb.

Three tests ported from python failed:

1. Set doesn't glue equal Arguments (#test_set)
2. docopt parses '[--]' into '--' not true as python implementation (#test_allow_double_underscore)
3. the same is true for '[-]' (#test_allow_single_underscore)

One test (#test_issue34_unicode_strings) not implemented (it's about unicode)

[keleshev]

This looks really good for me. Also shows that language-agnostic tests have worse test-coverage than Python tests—that means I need to port more Python tests to language-agnostic tests. (Also, I recently discovered coverage.py which I will use to ensure 100% test-coverage of Python and language-agnostic tests).

Good job! I'm not Rubyist so it's best that @shabbyrobe and @njoh take a look at this to decide if this can be merged without changes.

[johari]

Yay!! Thank you @prijutme4ty ! : )
It looks great and merging it should be fine..
I'll check if we can use a ruby code coverage tool along with these tests (and language agnostic ones) this weekend.

Also, automating tests for different ruby versions sounds reasonable to me.. maybe on travis-ci.
opinions?

[shabbyrobe]

This is fantastic! Thank you very much. I have merged into the develop branch: 00a567d

Are these tests failing for you too?

• test_allow_double_underscore
• test_allow_single_underscore
• test_set

Also, what would be the best practice for including that file that is failing in test_docopt_rb.rb? The file in question is actually called examples/example_options.rb.

[VorontsovIE]

Thank you for merging!

Not to forget - there were two test:
#test_count_multiple_flags, #test_count_multiple_commands where I found construction:

assert_raise(Docopt::Exit) {
assert_equal docopt('usage: prog [-vv]', '-vvv')
}

I've easily ported this but can't understand why such a strange syntax used.

@shabbyrobe, yes these 3 tests fails for me too. I've described in commit info, reasons of failure.
Thank you for specifing file that should be used. I'll send a pull request to restore testing functionality in a short time.

[keleshev]

@prijutme4ty

assert_raise(Docopt::Exit) {
  assert_equal docopt('usage: prog [-vv]', '-vvv')
}

why such a strange syntax used

See docopt/docopt#30. Would be interesting to hear—what do you think of this feature?

[VorontsovIE]

@halst I think this feature is ok, but I can't realize where I can use it :) Not so many applications use smth like -vvv option.
I meant strange syntax of test, not CLI. I've sent a small patch where I've described what do I mean.

[shabbyrobe]

Actually there are quite a few applications I've found in my collection of saved help messages that make use of the counted short option. @halst, I think you were right all along though: -v3 makes much more sense. Oh well, it's in there now, is there any cost to keeping it in?

[keleshev]

I think we should definitely keep it, because (as I said earlier) this functionality fills gap in syntax interpretation—how to interpret ... for flags and repeating flags. Unless there is some better interpretation—we should keep this.