Prioritizing the release of Nitro 0.50, first thing is to do is get Og in order and I'm going to do that as a fully separate package. So I'm using the Ogden repository to facilitate this. It's just a copy of the Og repo from about a month or so ago. Three things to do: 1) If any changes were made to Og darcs in the last month, please port those changes to Ogden's repo. 2) Remove use of facets/paramix.rb (its begin deprecated). This effects Orderable and Hierarchical mixins (any others?) 3) Get the tests passing. Most of them are failing, and I need people more familiar with the Og's internals to help fix. I'm not sure how much the failing tests has to do with the switch from test/unit to rspec. Who did this transition? Were the specs ever all passing? Ogden is usintg SVN and not darcs. Please see this page to check out a copy: http://rubyforge.org/scm/?group_id=5023 And let me know if you need to be added as an team developer. Thanks, T.
on 25.02.2008 17:17
on 27.02.2008 12:41
Hi, > I'm not sure how much the failing tests has to do with the switch from > test/unit to rspec. Who did this transition? Were the specs ever all > passing? I translated all of Ogs specs and some of the Nitro ones. The specs were passing about 80% as far as I can remember. As a sidenote: I resented the change to rspec, it was introduced in a hurry, was not executed by someone knowledgeable enough, did not have full backing from George and as a result is now in it's usual morbid half-state. Before the switch to rspec my mind tells me that about 3 tests failed. How about that. If you can personally assure me that the spec structure is basically working, that only `rake test` or similar has to be done and that a strict 'only patches passing all tests'-policy will be used on Ogden - then I will have a look at the failing specs. Jo
on 27.02.2008 15:55
On Feb 27, 6:38 am, "Jonathan Buch" <j...@oxyliquit.de> wrote: > a hurry, was not executed by someone knowledgeable enough, did not have > full backing from George and as a result is now in it's usual morbid > half-state. I did too. Not that it was a bad idea in the long run, but it was very much wrong time to be doing it. > Before the switch to rspec my mind tells me that about 3 tests failed. > > How about that. If you can personally assure me that the spec structure > is basically working, I think so. I'm still trying to understand it myself. I assume it was correct to just load all the .rb files within the test/ directory. Since there is no spec_ prefix, or anything like that, I could only assume this to be the case. It seems to be working for the most part -- with the exception of warnings about constants being reset. I will keep working to improve this, and make sure it is working right Any help you can offer in the way of this is appreciated. > that only `rake test` or similar has to be done Yes, just run "ruby task/test". > and that a strict 'only patches passing all tests'-policy will be used > on Ogden - then I will have a look at the failing specs. Yes. After we get 0.50 out the door (which George has been asking me do for weeks now), we will switch to a proper patch policy with branches and passing tests. In fact, would you like to be in change of overseeing that? T.
on 27.02.2008 22:42
Hi, > I think so. I'm still trying to understand it myself. I assume it was > correct to just load all the .rb files within the test/ directory. > Since there is no spec_ prefix, or anything like that, I could only another annoyance; one gets what one asks for. :P > assume this to be the case. It seems to be working for the most part -- > with the exception of warnings about constants being reset. I will > keep working to improve this, and make sure it is working right Any > help you can offer in the way of this is appreciated. > >> that only `rake test` or similar has to be done > > Yes, just run "ruby task/test". jo:ogden jo:0$ ruby task/test ruby: No such file or directory -- task/test (LoadError) jo:ogden jo:1$ ls task/ clobber rdoc setup >> and that a strict 'only patches passing all tests'-policy will be used >> on Ogden - then I will have a look at the failing specs. > > Yes. After we get 0.50 out the door (which George has been asking me > do for weeks now), we will switch to a proper patch policy with > branches and passing tests. But of course, until there is actually a Ogden which has no failing tests, that point is moot. But I like the plan. :) > In fact, would you like to be in change of overseeing that? No, I don't see that coming yet. As I'm wrapping up my University time this semester, I very much doubt I have the leasure time to do maintainer work. All I hope I can do is putting my Og knowledge to use to at least get it in a half stable state. Jo
on 27.02.2008 23:14
On Feb 27, 4:41 pm, "Jonathan Buch" <j...@oxyliquit.de> wrote: > Hi, > > > I think so. I'm still trying to understand it myself. I assume it was > > correct to just load all the .rb files within the test/ directory. > > Since there is no spec_ prefix, or anything like that, I could only > > another annoyance; one gets what one asks for. :P :D If it's any consolation I'll buy a beer (or preferred beverage). > ruby: No such file or directory -- task/test (LoadError) > jo:ogden jo:1$ ls task/ > clobber rdoc setup Sorry. I worked on these last night and forgot to check them in. They should be there now. > > In fact, would you like to be in change of overseeing that? > > No, I don't see that coming yet. As I'm wrapping up my University > time this semester, I very much doubt I have the leasure time to > do maintainer work. > All I hope I can do is putting my Og knowledge to use to at least get > it in a half stable state. Understood. Hopefully a couple of other interested and capable programmers will turn up once we get 0.50 out the door. I'm pretty busy too. T.
on 23.03.2008 21:38
Hi folks. I just downloaded from the svn link and ran task/test and got the following: Finished in 7.722335 seconds 19 examples, 13 failures Is this the same thing you guys are getting or am I even more out of whack than you? Thanks, Dan
on 24.03.2008 20:57
On Mar 23, 4:34 pm, "Dan North" <tasta...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi folks. > > I just downloaded from the svn link and ran task/test and got the following: > > Finished in 7.722335 seconds > > 19 examples, 13 failures > > Is this the same thing you guys are getting or am I even more out of whack > than you? That's about the state of things right now. I just spent about 15 minutes updating my copy to the latest Facets and I end up with 11 failures. There is some clear work that needs to be done before a new release -- mainly removing the use of paramix.rb and then getting the tests to pass. But I haven't had any time lately to work on it. It would be great if someone wanted to dive in. T.
on 24.03.2008 21:01
Do you know what kind of changes are needed to make this compatible with the latest facets? -g.
on 26.03.2008 03:31
On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, "George Moschovitis" <george.moschovi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do you know what kind of changes are needed to make this compatible with the > latest facets? > -g. I just committed my changes. The changes were mainly just adjusting some require statements. T.
on 26.03.2008 09:25
> > > I just committed my changes. The changes were mainly just adjusting > some require statements. can you remind me where they are commited? -g.
on 26.03.2008 12:45
On Mar 26, 4:24 am, "George Moschovitis" <george.moschovi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I just committed my changes. The changes were mainly just adjusting > > some require statements. > > can you remind me where they are commited? http://rubyforge.org/scm/?group_id=5023 T.