# ZenTest 3.0.0 Released **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [March 7, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/zentest-3-0-0-released/77546 "2006-03-07T01:26:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![aguynamedryan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/43a26b/32.png) [@aguynamedryan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/aguynamedryan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/zentest-3-0-0-released/77546/1 "2006-03-07T01:26:08Z")
ZenTest version 3.0.0 has been released! [zentest | software projects | by ryan davis](http://www.zenspider.com/ZSS/Products/ZenTest/) == DESCRIPTION ZenTest provides 3 different tools: zentest, unit\_diff, and autotest. ZenTest scans your target and unit-test code and writes your missing code based on simple naming rules, enabling XP at a much quicker pace. ZenTest only works with Ruby and Test::Unit. unit\_diff is a command-line filter to diff expected results from actual results and allow you to quickly see exactly what is wrong. autotest is a continous testing facility meant to be used during development. As soon as you save a file, autotest will run the corresponding dependent tests. There are two strategies intended for ZenTest: test conformance auditing and rapid XP. For auditing, ZenTest provides an excellent means of finding methods that have slipped through the testing process. I’ve run it against my own software and found I missed a lot in a well tested package. Writing those tests found 4 bugs I had no idea existed. ZenTest can also be used to evaluate generated code and execute your tests, allowing for very rapid development of both tests and implementation. == FEATURES/PROBLEMS - Scans your ruby code and tests and generates missing methods for you. - Includes a very helpful filter for Test::Unit output called unit\_diff. - Continually and intelligently test only those files you change with autotest. - Includes a LinuxJournal article on testing with ZenTest written by Pat Eyler. Changes: - 2 major enhancements - 3 minor enhancements - 3 bug fixes ---
**Author:** ![aguynamedryan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/43a26b/32.png) [@aguynamedryan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/aguynamedryan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 2:11am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/zentest-3-0-0-released/77546/2 "2006-03-07T02:11:26Z")
On 3/6/06, Ryan D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > code based on simple naming rules, enabling XP at a much quicker > pace. ZenTest only works with Ruby and Test::Unit. > > unit\_diff is a command-line filter to diff expected results from > actual results and allow you to quickly see exactly what is wrong. > > autotest is a continous testing facility meant to be used during > development. As soon as you save a file, autotest will run the > corresponding dependent tests. This is awesome. Thanks, Ryan! ---
**Author:** ![aguynamedryan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/43a26b/32.png) [@aguynamedryan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/aguynamedryan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 3:49pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/zentest-3-0-0-released/77546/3 "2006-03-07T15:49:57Z")
Ryan D. wrote: > ZenTest version 3.0.0 has been released! Excellent news. > ZenTest scans your target and unit-test code and writes your missing > code based on simple naming rules, enabling XP at a much quicker > pace. ZenTest only works with Ruby and Test::Unit. This has always sounded scary to me as written because it goes against the behavior notion best described by Astels: [http://blog.daveastels.com/?p=53](http://blog.daveastels.com/?p=53) > unit\_diff is a command-line filter to diff expected results from > actual results and allow you to quickly see exactly what is wrong. I’ve always thought that this should be folded into test/unit as an option. Ryan/Nathaniel, what say you? Later, ---
**Author:** ![aguynamedryan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/43a26b/32.png) [@aguynamedryan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/aguynamedryan)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/zentest-3-0-0-released/77546/4 "2006-03-08T23:44:35Z")
Eric H. wrote: > thing it should be broken into methods that each do one thing. > Excellent point. So, I’ll have to attack on another > front. 🙂 Automatically creating tests after the methods misses the design benefits and the other economies of test-driven design – see Beck’s draft on /When to Test/, [http://tinyurl.com/n2czh](http://tinyurl.com/n2czh) Note: it’s in the members-only file section of the Yahoo extremeprogramming group. Later, ---
**Author:** ![aguynamedryan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/43a26b/32.png) [@aguynamedryan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/aguynamedryan)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 12:02am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/zentest-3-0-0-released/77546/5 "2006-03-08T00:02:17Z")
On Mar 7, 2006, at 6:48 AM, Bil K. wrote: > it goes against the behavior notion best described by > Astels: [http://blog.daveastels.com/?p=53](http://blog.daveastels.com/?p=53) On the “What Then?” slide I see this: - small, focused pieces of behaviour - sub-method - an interesting method will have several facets to its behaviour For me this throws up a big flag that says the code isn’t factored properly. A method should be a small, focused piece of behavior without several facets to its behavior. If a method does more than one thing it should be broken into methods that each do one thing. When you write your code in small units of behavior mapped to methods then ZenTest is a perfect match. If you have poorly factored code and big methods with many outputs and inputs test coverage is very difficult to judge because you can’t easily track what goes on inside your methods and match it up to test cases. – Eric H. - removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid - [http://blog.segment7.net](http://blog.segment7.net) This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant [http://trackmap.robotcoop.com](http://trackmap.robotcoop.com)