Forum: Ruby Ruby Test Frameworks

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Michael F. (Guest)
on 2008-12-09 17:38
I'm looking for a Ruby Framework that I can use to aid in testing a
filter driver, we currently use a Perl based set of scripts that has
some wrapping  and does system events for files, directories and
registry changes (it's multi-platform for Windows and *nixes).

Ideally, I want to start capturing data in a database and give a nice
simple framework around it, which is what led me to Rails and from that
to Ruby - and I thought being able to make our Harness more OO to allow
for more reuse and remove duplication (which there is a lot of in our
scripts).  Plus one language to handle test results and the test harness
seemed more efficient.  Most of the Ruby Test Frameworks that I have
looked through are all Web or GUI test frameworks, Test::Unit is nice
but I would like to know if there is a Framework for application and
system testing that I have missed.  Has anyone used a framework for
application and system testing they could recommend, or even an existing
one that they have used successfully?

Some of my initial requirements are:
  - Runs on Windows and Linux
  - Supports calling external code/scripts, we have Java and C code that
is called for memory utilization and socket testing
  - Can generate system events for create/modify/delete of files and
directories
  - Has some hooks into Windows Registry, IIS and Linux RPM (Nice to
haves but not required)
  - Can integrate with an IDE (Visual Studio would be nice)

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks!
Brian C. (Guest)
on 2008-12-09 17:49
Michael Furmaniuk wrote:
> Most of the Ruby Test Frameworks that I have
> looked through are all Web or GUI test frameworks, Test::Unit is nice
> but I would like to know if there is a Framework for application and
> system testing that I have missed.  Has anyone used a framework for
> application and system testing they could recommend, or even an existing
> one that they have used successfully?

I don't know of anything specific to 'application and system testing'.
If I were you, I'd start with Test::Unit or its bigger brothers Shoulda
or Rspec, and see if it does what you actually need.

> Some of my initial requirements are:
>   - Runs on Windows and Linux
>   - Supports calling external code/scripts, we have Java and C code that
> is called for memory utilization and socket testing

You can call external programs using backticks, system() or IO.popen:
e.g.

  def test_foo
    result = `foo`
    assert_equal 0, $?               # exit code
    assert_match /success/, result   # output on stdout
  end

You can call actual C using RubyInline or FFI.

>   - Can generate system events for create/modify/delete of files and
> directories

You can do those actions using FileUtils. Or do you mean you want to be
*notified* of those sorts of events happening in the filesystem? I'm not
sure about that.

>   - Has some hooks into Windows Registry, IIS and Linux RPM (Nice to
> haves but not required)

Not sure, I believe there is Win32 API (but I'm a Linux person).

>   - Can integrate with an IDE (Visual Studio would be nice)

I think Test::Unit has some graphical runners (but I'm a CLI person :-)
Richard C. (Guest)
on 2008-12-09 22:59
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Brian C. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:
> or Rspec, and see if it does what you actually need.
For the simple stuff, dust is my tool of choice. Its a very simple
wrapper around
Test::Unit, so there is a shallow learning curve, but you get
meaningful test names,
and it is very easy to generate large blocks of tests from arrays of
inputs. Handy
for black box testing, testing regexes etc.

Shoulda and RSpec I think are tackling different needs. The learning
curve is greater
and there is more magic involved, but I suspect that test
organisation, and consolidation
of reporting is probably a greater priority than natural language test
description.

>    assert_equal 0, $?               # exit code
>    assert_match /success/, result   # output on stdout
>  end
>
> You can call actual C using RubyInline or FFI.

In addition, check out JtestR for plain old Java testing (it works
great).

>
> Not sure, I believe there is Win32 API (but I'm a Linux person).
>
>>   - Can integrate with an IDE (Visual Studio would be nice)

Theres a team integrating Ruby into visual studio, I can't recall
offhand.

>
> I think Test::Unit has some graphical runners (but I'm a CLI person :-)

I haven't found a good solution for out of the box test reporting in
Ruby.
RSpec has some great reporting, but I need something a bit more turnkey.

I currently use dust to test java code through JtestR on top of an
existing
Java build system (so our test reporting is done through JUnit reports
and
cobertura works for our code coverage of the java code).
Brian C. (Guest)
on 2008-12-10 00:27
Richard C. wrote:
> Shoulda and RSpec I think are tackling different needs. The learning
> curve is greater
> and there is more magic involved, but I suspect that test
> organisation, and consolidation
> of reporting is probably a greater priority than natural language test
> description.

For Rspec I agree - I found it too contrived - but shoulda fitted my
needs much better. It gives you the meaningful test names, and also
setup/teardown contexts which avoids having to make a new class for
every set of fixtures. But you keep good old-fashioned assertions at the
bottom.

class Foo < Test::Unit::TestCase
  context "Piping in FOO" do
    setup do
      File.delete("output.txt")
      @res = `echo "FOO" | ./wibble`
    end

    should "generate output BAR" do
      assert_match /BAR/, @res
    end

    should "create file output.txt" do
      assert File.exist?("output.txt")
    end

    # etc
  end
end
Michael F. (Guest)
on 2008-12-10 01:42
Richard C. wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Brian C. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
> wrote:
> Shoulda and RSpec I think are tackling different needs. The learning
> curve is greater
> and there is more magic involved, but I suspect that test
> organisation, and consolidation
> of reporting is probably a greater priority than natural language test
> description.

Yes, natural language test description is nice, but if it comes at the
expense of reporting and organization I can deal with the odd
description.  I had looked a little at RSpec but not in depth, and
Shoulda I saw referenced in a page somewhere but it did not seem a fit
for what I was looking for, I will check them more in depth.

>> You can call actual C using RubyInline or FFI.
>
> In addition, check out JtestR for plain old Java testing (it works
> great).

Thanks for these, and the other ideas, I will check them out!
Yanik Magnan (Guest)
on 2008-12-10 14:08
(Received via mailing list)
I'm guessing probably the IronRuby guys are the ones getting Visual
Studio working with Ruby. :P

-- Yanik Magnan • http://r-ch.net
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.