# Re: changes to extname\_spec.rb

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-changes-to-extname-spec-rb/137602>\
**Category:** IronRuby\
**Created:** [May 14, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-changes-to-extname-spec-rb/137602 "2008-05-14T15:56:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ksunair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@ksunair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/ksunair)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-changes-to-extname-spec-rb/137602/1 "2008-05-14T15:56:37Z")

</div>

Hi Pete,

I was kind of doing what you are saying but manually though. But after  
seeing the specs, I stopped doing it altogether.

I wrote down the test and display the result on the console with puts.  
Now run the script with ‘ruby’ on console and redirect the output to a  
file (not MRI, I need to change based on what I hear) and then run the  
same code against ir and do the same. After that I run my file compare  
program and see the differences.

So it is possible to automate what you are suggesting, but don’t you  
think the spec was already written to cover all the cases? Wouldn’t it  
be a duplicate work? Just curious…

Thanks.

----- Original Message ----  
From: Peter Bacon D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)  
To: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid  
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:41:43 AM  
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] changes to extname\_spec.rb

I have been working on the basis that MRI is the reference  
implementation  
and so the specs should reflect that. If, on writing a spec, an obvious  
bug  
is exposed then we should be sending this on to the RubyLang lot and  
getting  
them to fix it.

Otherwise if it’s good enough for MRI its good enough for me.

* * *

By the way, I had this idea of creating a small program that would help  
with  
regression testing against MRI. Instead of writing full RSpecs, we  
should  
write snippets of Ruby that work the classes. The program would then  
run  
the snippets against MRI and IronRuby (and any other implementation if  
you  
wanted) and compare the results. That way you could directly check how  
similar IR was to MRI without having to fix up the specs all the time.  
Also  
it would be much quicker and easier to write the specs since you  
wouldn’t  
have to check what the correct result should be in each case.

For instance, you could have the following snippets of code for the  
Fixnum#div method:

```
2.div(2)
1.div(2)
5.div(2)

8192.div(10)
8192.div(-10)
(-8192).div(10)
(-8192).div(-10)

1.div(0.2)
1.div(0.16)
1.div(0.169)
-1.div(50.4)
1.div(0xffffffff)

0.div(0.0)
10.div(0.0)
-10.div(0.0)
13.div(0)
(obj = Object.new).should_receive(:to_int, :count => 0, :returning 

```

=\>  
10)  
13.div(obj)  
5.div(“2”)

Obviously with some description mechanism and possibly some way of  
specifying what should be considered in the output from Ruby: whether to  
check the class and value of results returned; type and fields of  
objects  
passed in; if errors are raised the type and message of the error.

Anyone fancy knocking this up?  
Pete

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ksunair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@ksunair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/ksunair)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 4:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-changes-to-extname-spec-rb/137602/2 "2008-05-14T16:13:33Z")

</div>

Aren’t we running (or going to be running) the official spec suite (  
[http://rubyspec.org](http://rubyspec.org)) ?

These specs are already written on the assumption that MRI /is/ THE  
implementation of Ruby.

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Unnikrishnan N. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ksunair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@ksunair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/ksunair)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 4:24pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-changes-to-extname-spec-rb/137602/3 "2008-05-14T16:24:21Z")

</div>

Michael L.:

> Aren’t we running (or going to be running) the official spec suite  
> ([http://rubyspec.org](http://rubyspec.org)) ?

We are going to be checking in the rubyspec suite later this week. I  
just got the fix for the DLR tuple bug last night and I’ll push it out  
later this morning. That was the major thing that was blocking us from  
checking in rubyspec earlier.

Thanks,  
-John

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ksunair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@ksunair](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/ksunair)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-changes-to-extname-spec-rb/137602/4 "2008-05-14T16:49:49Z")

</div>

Unnikrishnan N.:

> I wrote down the test and display the result on the console with puts.

A meta-level note: beware of running things via irb. Things like  
**FILE** don’t behave the way you would expect them to because irb is a  
Ruby program. If in doubt, write your code in a file and run it via  
ruby.exe.

Thanks,  
-John