Forum: Ruby MiniTest & Test::Unit::TestResult in Ruby 1.9.1

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.
James M. (Guest)
on 2009-01-28 17:20
(Received via mailing list)
It looks like Test::Unit::TestResult [1] has disappeared in Ruby 1.9.1.
Is
this correct?

In fact, it looks like requiring 'test/unit' now just gets you a thin
wrapper around MiniTest. Is this correct?

In Mocha's acceptance tests we currently use Test::Unit to run tests
within
tests [2] and Test::Result gives us access to the errors and failures
that
occurred within the inner test. This gives us clean looking tests like
ParameterMatcherTest [3].
--
James.
http://blog.floehopper.org

[1] http://is.gd/hwZb
[2] http://is.gd/hwYM
[3] http://is.gd/hx14
James G. (Guest)
on 2009-01-28 17:41
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 28, 2009, at 9:17 AM, James M. wrote:

> It looks like Test::Unit::TestResult [1] has disappeared in Ruby
> 1.9.1. Is
> this correct?
>
> In fact, it looks like requiring 'test/unit' now just gets you a thin
> wrapper around MiniTest. Is this correct?

This is correct.  Test::Unit has been retired.

James Edward G. II
Thomas S. (Guest)
on 2009-01-28 21:58
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 28, 10:38 am, James G. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2009, at 9:17 AM, James M. wrote:
>
> > It looks like Test::Unit::TestResult [1] has disappeared in Ruby  
> > 1.9.1. Is
> > this correct?
>
> > In fact, it looks like requiring 'test/unit' now just gets you a thin
> > wrapper around MiniTest. Is this correct?
>
> This is correct.  Test::Unit has been retired.

Retired? I beleive it is still an active project, only it is now a
separate install.

T.
James G. (Guest)
on 2009-01-28 22:00
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Trans wrote:

>>
>> This is correct.  Test::Unit has been retired.
>
> Retired? I beleive it is still an active project, only it is now a
> separate install.

Yeah, my bad.  I should have said it has been retired as a standard
library.

James Edward G. II
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.