Simplifying the DRb version of the runner

[chadoh]

We're using guard-minitest with spork-minitest. Spork works when running just spork and then using testdrb to run individual files, but guard-minitest was broken. It kept saying

Running tests with args ["-r", "/Users/costro0001/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.2-p180-patched/gems/guard-minitest-0.5.0/lib/guard/minitest/runners/default_runner.rb", "-e
", "::GUARD_NOTIFY=true", "test/test_helper.rb", "./test/unit/raw_site_test.rb"]...
Exception encountered: #<LoadError: no such file to load -- -r>

It turns out that the implementation of testdrb in spork-minitest does not allow the -r or -e options in the way guard-minitest had been passing them in. Additionally, I found that the inclusion of test_helper/spec_helper was also unnecessary, as these files were already being included in the individual test that was being run.

I'm not sure why all of this extra machinery was in place. It seems strange that I just removed it. Let me know what you think.

[chadoh]

Oh, and yes, I'm aware that I probably "broke" the Growl notifications as a consequence of this. My team had not been using that, anyhow, so we don't mind. I don't really have a whole lot of time to play around with it, so I just wanted to get it working quickly.

[rmm5t]

I think this pull-request over on spork-minitest might be a better solution to the underlying problem.

semaperepelitsa/spork-minitest#5 specifically nuxlli/spork-minitest@ac59be9

[rking]

@rmm5t Why do we need those options supported?

The testrunner works fine without being explicitly listed, and the notification is configurable just fine through other means.

I vote 👍 on 5a7f3c1

[rmm5t]

@rking Originally, I felt this way, because this pull-request breaks notification support, but after the discussion over at semaperepelitsa/spork-minitest#5, I agree now that it would be better to just simplify guard-minitest as described in the pull-request here.

[zenspider]

I agree and I like this PR.

[sbleon]

+1

[rmm5t]

Any chance of this PR getting pulled in anytime soon? I've confirmed that this change combined with spork-minitest 1.0.0.beta2 both make things a little more friendly between the two gems.

[rking]

I just got bored and pushed the guard-sporkminitest gem.

It doesn't even have a 'drb' option, or any other cruft.

I use it indirectly, by just saying:

Gemfile

group :development do gem 'working' end

Guardfile

require 'working/guard'

test/test_helper.rb

require 'working/test_helper'
# Spork.prefork doesn't like when this line is missing 

I'm ready to support this 100%, so let me know with Github Issues or whatever.

[rking]

Also I released working-rails, that uses guard-minispork for Rails stuff.

All three of these gems need polish, but they currently work for me.

[rymai]

Hi guys!

Thanks for the discussion, strangely I didn't receive any notification about it (not sure how notifications are received for organization's repos...)!

@chadoh Could you rebase on master so I can merge it in?

Thanks!

[chadoh]

Haha, I'm pleased that my 10-month-old pull request will finally be merged in! Unfortunately, I no longer work at the organization in which I used this, and I no longer have access to the repo. (@chrisledet! You might be the most likely of all my @itrcdevs comrades to want to help. These folks need my pull request rebased in order to accept it.)

[rymai]

Ok cool! Or I can merge it locally (the downside it that the commit will be from me instead of you...)?

[chadoh]

Haha, @chrisledet's merge undid all my changes. 😦 He's given me access to the repo again; I'll fix it up at some point today.

[chadoh]

Ok, it's obviously been a while and I'm no longer using this, but it looks like I redid all the original changes after @chrisledet helpfully merged master in.

[rymai]

Awesome!