# ANN: DocTest 0.0.1 version code-name: bazooka **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [April 12, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-doctest-0-0-1-version-code-name-bazooka/134607 "2008-04-12T20:53:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **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:** [April 12, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-doctest-0-0-1-version-code-name-bazooka/134607/1 "2008-04-12T20:53:56Z")
I have recently coded up an implementation of Doctest for Ruby. Kind of ugly, but it works. DocTest Explanation: Or rather, example: Here are some examples copied from [http://clintonforbes.blogspot.com/2007/08/doctest-for-ruby-and-rails.html](http://clintonforbes.blogspot.com/2007/08/doctest-for-ruby-and-rails.html) =begin #doctest Check that 1 + 1 = 2 > > 1 + 1 > > =\> 2 > > 2 + 3 > > =\> 5 > > =end And it outputs something like this Looking for doctests in 3 files Processing ‘script/…/app/helpers/application\_helper.rb’ Testing ‘Check strings’…OK Testing ‘Check that 1 + 1 = 2’…OK Testing ‘Add some arrays’…OK Testing ‘Check that 2 + 2 = 4 and 4 + 4 = 7’…FAILED Code: 4 + 4 Expected: 7 But got: 8 Processing ‘script/…/app/models/member.rb’ Testing ‘Test creating a Member’…OK Total tests: 5, Succeeded: 4 You can also add explanations between lines =begin #doctest Check that 1 + 1 = 2 > > 1 + 1 > > =\> 2 > > It should also work for other than 1’s > > 2 + 3 > > =\> 5 > > =end You’ll note that this is just copied and pasted working output from an irb session. You can add these anywhere in your file. Advantages The advantages of using this is that it creates tests that are somewhat behavior oriented [behavior of a method], and the tests serve as a kind of documentation for the code. And it is dirt easy and fast to create these kind of tests. I like it because I don’t have to think as much to do the testing. Installation [it’s not yet a real rubygem] Download [http://ruby-roger-useful-functions.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/packages/doctest/pkg/doctest-0.0.1.gem](http://ruby-roger-useful-functions.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/packages/doctest/pkg/doctest-0.0.1.gem) run [sudo] gem install doctest-0.0.1.gem Here’s the page for any feedback: [http://code.google.com/p/ruby-roger-useful-functions/wiki/DocTest](http://code.google.com/p/ruby-roger-useful-functions/wiki/DocTest) ---
**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:** [April 13, 2008, 1:40am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-doctest-0-0-1-version-code-name-bazooka/134607/2 "2008-04-13T01:40:33Z")
On Apr 12, 2:54 pm, Roger P. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > =\> 2 > Testing ‘Check that 1 + 1 = 2’…OK > You can also add explanations between lines > You’ll note that this is just copied and pasted working output from an > Installation [it’s not yet a real rubygem] > > Downloadhttp://ruby-roger-useful-functions.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/packages/… > run [sudo] gem install doctest-0.0.1.gem > > Here’s the page for any feedback:[http://code.google.com/p/ruby-roger-useful-functions/wiki/DocTest](http://code.google.com/p/ruby-roger-useful-functions/wiki/DocTest) Hi– I did something like this for a long time. But instead of a test framework, I just integrated it with test/unit (or any test suite you wish to use). The layout was simple: =begin test ``` require 'test/unit' # normal test unit code here ``` =end I had a tool that could extract these sections into test/ files, or run them directly. Later I realized I could just use a general text extract tool (I wrote a simple multi-line grep utility) and pipe the result to Ruby. I really liked this system, however I stopped using it because it was unconventional and while it was great for unit tests, it didn;t help with integrated tests. I figure if I was going to have to maintain any of those, I might as well maintain the unit test files too. In other words I preferred having just a single approach. However, I do miss it some times. It was really nice to have the tests right there and be able to rubnthem so easily when working on code. T. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2008, 1:54am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-doctest-0-0-1-version-code-name-bazooka/134607/3 "2008-04-13T01:54:26Z")
> Hi– > > I did something like this for a long time. But instead of a test > framework, I just integrated it with test/unit (or any test suite you > wish to use). The layout was simple: That’s a great idea–allow for ‘normal’ code tests, as well. Then people can do more integrated-y tests. I like it. > words I preferred having just a single approach. However, I do miss it > some times. It was really nice to have the tests right there and be > able to rubnthem so easily when working on code. Yeah I agree that having tests right next to the code is very nice. I also like it because it doesn’t seem to interrupt my flow of coding as much. -R