Putting unit test cases in the code - RDoc & UnitTest


#1

Hi. I find that the best place to put unit test cases is in the file
for the class being tested itself. This puts everything in the same
place, and also makes examples readily available for someone trying to
understand the code.

Question 1: Can I do this without having Test::Unit automatically run
the tests, every time the file is require 'd?

Question 2: How can I do this so that RDoc shows the examples in the
generated documentation?


#2

How about just something like that at the end of your file;

if ENV[“RUN_TESTS”]
require ‘test/unit’
class MyTest < Test::Unit::TestCase
#your tests
end
end

Cheers,
Dave


#3

Hi –

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Hi. I find that the best place to put unit test cases is in the file
for the class being tested itself. This puts everything in the same
place, and also makes examples readily available for someone trying to
understand the code.

Question 1: Can I do this without having Test::Unit automatically run
the tests, every time the file is require 'd?

You can put this at the end of the file:

if $0 == FILE

test code here

end

and then that code will only run if that exact file has been invoked.

David


#4

Hi –

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

David,

That’s a great idea. The only problem is that, let’s say FileA and
FileB both require FileC. We’d like to run the unit tests for each
file separately, and certainly not more than once. With your code,
they’ll get run recursively, each time they’re required.

They shouldn’t run at all from any require’d file, because the $0 ==
FILE test won’t pass in that file.

But maybe I could add
if ENV[“RUN_TESTS”} && $0 == FILE ?

Would that do it? And I guess then RDoc would see the class and doc it
(it’ll ignore the if statement wrapping it, I assume).

If it gets that complex you might want to use Rake and set up a test
target. That might be more scaleable.

David


#5

David,

That’s a great idea. The only problem is that, let’s say FileA and
FileB both require FileC. We’d like to run the unit tests for each
file separately, and certainly not more than once. With your code,
they’ll get run recursively, each time they’re required.

But maybe I could add
if ENV[“RUN_TESTS”} && $0 == FILE ?

Would that do it? And I guess then RDoc would see the class and doc it
(it’ll ignore the if statement wrapping it, I assume).


#6

With Facets I use a remark:

=begin test
require ‘text/unit’
class ATest << Test::Unit::TestCase

end
=end

when I want to run the test I remark the remarks:

#=begin test

#=end

That works good for dev testing.

Later when I want to run the enite testsuite I use a Reap task (see
Rubyforge) that extracts and copies the remarked tests to the test
directory.

T.


#7

On Nov 14, 2005, at 7:32 AM, removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Hi. I find that the best place to put unit test cases is in the file
for the class being tested itself. This puts everything in the same
place, and also makes examples readily available for someone trying to
understand the code.

So does creating a file per class and placing tests into identically
named files with test_ on the front.

This also makes it easy for testrb to pick up your tests and make
things Just Work?

Question 1: Can I do this without having Test::Unit automatically run
the tests, every time the file is require 'd?

You need to not require test/unit. This is best done by placing
tests in their own files.

Question 2: How can I do this so that RDoc shows the examples in the
generated documentation?

Put the tests in their own file and point RDoc at your test files.

Typically I’ve found examples are best placed in the class and method
documentation because tests can provide an overwhelming amount of
information.


#8

On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:32 AM, Trans wrote:

#=begin test

#=end

That works good for dev testing.

Later when I want to run the enite testsuite I use a Reap task (see
Rubyforge) that extracts and copies the remarked tests to the test
directory.

I like to run my tests all the time, and I like source control to run
tests for me when I check in to make sure I didn’t forget. Having to
edit a file to run them is unnecessary extra work.

This extra work does not reinforce good testing discipline.


#9

Eric, you missed the last point. I have a script that exracts all tests
to test_xxx files in test directory, so I have best of both worlds.

T.


#10

On Nov 14, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Trans wrote:

Eric, you missed the last point. I have a script that exracts all
tests
to test_xxx files in test directory, so I have best of both worlds.

But… I don’t need that script, so I will never have to maintain it.