Browse files

Rubinius support

  • Loading branch information...
1 parent 346551e commit b93a9e303a966c71642813b7c205e81a61618337 @glv committed Sep 16, 2010
Showing with 9 additions and 37 deletions.
  1. +1 −0 .gitignore
  2. +1 −1 Gemfile
  3. +1 −2 Gemfile.lock
  4. +4 −32
  5. +2 −2 spec/test_case_spec.rb
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ gem 'rspec', '= 2.0.0.beta.22'
group :test do
gem 'rake', '>= 0.8.7'
- gem 'rcov', '>= 0.9.9'
+ #gem 'rcov', '>= 0.9.9'
group :release do
@@ -10,7 +10,6 @@ GEM
rubyforge (>= 2.0.0)
json_pure (1.4.6)
rake (0.8.7)
- rcov (0.9.9)
rspec (2.0.0.beta.22)
rspec-core (= 2.0.0.beta.22)
rspec-expectations (= 2.0.0.beta.22)
@@ -25,10 +24,10 @@ GEM
json_pure (>= 1.1.7)
+ java
jeweler (>= 1.4.0)
rake (>= 0.8.7)
- rcov (>= 0.9.9)
rspec (= 2.0.0.beta.22)
@@ -58,16 +58,17 @@ in many ways.
Currently, test/unit compatibility is much more limited than in
RSpec 1. The goal is not to make RSpec 2 a drop-in replacement for
-test/unit; rather, we have two more limited goals:
+test/unit; rather, I have three more limited goals:
1. to allow RSpec 2 examples to easily make use of test/unit assertions
in cases where those assertions are valuable, or where assertions
might be the best way to express particular expectations.
2. to make it *easy* for a project to switch an existing test/unit
suite over to run under RSpec, as the start of a gradual, piecemeal
conversion to RSpec.
+3. to demonstrate how to extend RSpec 2.
-As such, there are some things we don''t support:
+As such, there are some things that are not supported:
* The top-level module name is different. For example, one requires
`rspec/unit` rather than `test/unit`, and extends `RSpec::Unit::TestCase`
@@ -79,37 +80,8 @@ As such, there are some things we don''t support:
* All test output and summaries are in RSpec style; test/unit-compatible
output is not supported.
-We will certainly consider supporting those things if there is demand.
-I originally wrote this test/unit compatibility gem for Micronaut, a
-lightweight RSpec clone by Chad Humphries. Micronaut has been rolled
-into RSpec as the core of RSpec 2, and I was able to move the test/unit
-compatibility over with minimal changes.
-The point of this gem is not that I think test/unit is a better way
-to write tests than the RSpec style. I admit that I'm a TDD oldtimer
-who sees RSpec as mostly a cosmetic (rather than fundamental) change,
-but that doesn't mean it's not an important change. My curmudgeonly
-nature has its limits, and I do find specs a big improvement.
-So why rspec-unit? Three reasons:
-1. I wanted to show off the generality of Micronaut's (and now RSpec's)
- architecture. I hope rspec-unit can serve as an example for anyone
- who wants to experiment with new ways of expressing tests and specs
- on top of RSpec.
-2. Many projects with existing test/unit test suites might want to
- benefit from the [metadata goodness][metadata] in RSpec 2, or begin
- a gradual, piecemeal change to an RSpec style. That's pretty
- easy to do with rspec-unit.
-3. Even when writing specs and examples, I frequently encounter
- cases where an assertion is more expressive than a `should`
- expression. It's nice just to have assertions supported within
- RSpec examples.
+I will certainly consider supporting those things if there is demand.
## To Do
It would be nice to try using the assertion code from minitest,
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ class SampleTestCaseForName < RSpec::Unit::TestCase
it "sets :caller" do
@foo.metadata[:example_group][:caller].first.should =~[:example_group][:location]))
- @foo.metadata[:example_group][:caller].size.should == @caller_at_foo_definition.size + 3
+ @foo.metadata[:example_group][:caller].size.should be_>(@caller_at_foo_definition.size)
it "has nil for :block and :describes" do
@@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ def test_baz; end
def test_baz; end
test_baz_metadata[:caller].first.should match(/^#{Regexp.escape(@foo.examples.first.metadata[:location])}/)
- test_baz_metadata[:caller].size.should == caller.size + 3
+ test_baz_metadata[:caller].size.should be_>(caller.size)
it "records test_info metadata for next test method" do

0 comments on commit b93a9e3

Please sign in to comment.