# 1.9 test woe **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [July 18, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-test-woe/172301 "2009-07-18T22:14:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-test-woe/172301/1 "2009-07-18T22:14:43Z")
porting a lib to 1.9, I was presented with this: # somewhere it did a require ‘test/unit’ # then later uninitialized constant Test::Unit::AutoRunner The fix was: gem install test-unit gem ‘test-unit’ require ‘test/unit’ ref: [http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/test-unit-tracker/2008-October/000012.html](http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/test-unit-tracker/2008-October/000012.html) However–is this a bug? Does this mean that minitest isn’t totally compatible? Thanks. =r ---
**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-test-woe/172301/2 "2009-07-22T04:07:03Z")
On Jul 18, 2009, at 13:14, Roger P. wrote: > require ‘test/unit’ > > ref: > [http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/test-unit-tracker/2008-October/000012.html](http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/test-unit-tracker/2008-October/000012.html) > > However–is this a bug? Does this mean that minitest isn’t totally > compatible? It’s not. The library you’re porting is probably doing something wrong if it needs AutoRunner. Where is the code? ---
**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-test-woe/172301/3 "2009-07-23T15:30:10Z")
> > However–is this a bug? Does this mean that minitest isn’t totally > > compatible? > > It’s not. The library you’re porting is probably doing something > wrong if it needs AutoRunner. Where is the code? It came from running the [GitHub - coatl/sequence: Sequence provides a unified api for access to sequential Ruby data types, like Strings, Arrays, Files, IOs, and Enumerations.](http://github.com/coatl/sequence) unit tests in 1.9 I’m working with the author on it, too. =r ---
**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 5:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-test-woe/172301/4 "2009-07-23T17:58:58Z")
On 7/23/09, Roger P. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > However–is this a bug? Does this mean that minitest isn’t totally > > > compatible? > > > > It’s not. The library you’re porting is probably doing something > > wrong if it needs AutoRunner. Where is the code? > > It came from running the [GitHub - coatl/sequence: Sequence provides a unified api for access to sequential Ruby data types, like Strings, Arrays, Files, IOs, and Enumerations.](http://github.com/coatl/sequence) unit tests in > 1.9 > I’m working with the author on it, too. Using ObjectSpace.each\_object on the same line. Definitely a hack. Sequence inherited that test from its predecessor, cursor, which was written by someone else. I doubt those tests even work anymore. (Please take note of the first 2 lines of that file…) I don’t understand or use them. I kept the old tests around because they seemed to be doing some very clever things and I hoped to eventually be able to port them to sequence’s new api… sorry for any confusion. ---
**Author:** ![rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rogerdpack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rogerdpack)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 1:12am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-test-woe/172301/5 "2009-07-24T01:12:49Z")
On Jul 23, 2009, at 06:31, Roger P. wrote: > > > However–is this a bug? Does this mean that minitest isn’t totally > > > compatible? > > > > It’s not. The library you’re porting is probably doing something > > wrong if it needs AutoRunner. Where is the code? > > It came from running the [GitHub - coatl/sequence: Sequence provides a unified api for access to sequential Ruby data types, like Strings, Arrays, Files, IOs, and Enumerations.](http://github.com/coatl/sequence) unit tests > in > 1.9 It looks like the AutoRunner is only needed to set the seed across all test instances. If you just have a plain setter at the class level you should be able to ditch all that code.