Joshua B. wrote:
…and yet Dan C. of Thoughtbot just recently wrote up a rather
refreshing (and mildly scathing) look at Shoulda:
If you haven’t yet, look at MiniTest. It claims to be a foundation for
building other test suites, but I rather like it on it’s own. Small,
simple, fast…and I really like their Mock strategy. Very clean…
It’s kind of misleading. Many of the assertions he uses in the
Test::Unit example are rails-specific, and don’t work with the standard
library (1.8 test/unit or miniunit/minitest/bfts compat layer) like he
I’ve dealt with this struggle a bit recently… I think I can safely
comment on Test::Unit and Miniunit.
Miniunit is good for simple situations. Most situations are simple.
There’s nothing wrong with that. Unless you want the BDD stuff, use it.
If you need to do anything unorthodox, you will not find (or be capable
of doing without extensive monkeypatching) that support in miniunit. One
of the nice things in particular about Test::Unit is that it takes a
very OOP nature to testing; Miniunit is very top-down and the parts are
harder to deal with individually than with Test::Unit, and miniunit is
small and light as a result.
QA and Testing is one thing Perl really excels at. I think it would be
wise to look at how they’re doing it and consider adapting ruby’s
environment to deal with it in a similar way. TAP and Test::Harness mean
that you can write the test suite with print statements if you really
want to, that’s a powerful abstraction I don’t think is transferring
well between language communities due to perl’s pariah status here.