[katello-devel] Rspec and/or mini-test?

[Petr Chalupa]

On 11.03.13 10:44, Partha Aji wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Lukas Zapletal <lzap at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 08:43:06AM -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote:
>>> Why are we adding a new testing framework? Is it fixing a problem in
>>> the current frameworks?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> If we are going to shift from rspec to minitest-rspec, I dont really see
>> any added value, except we will get rid of few test-time dependencies.
> +1
> I like the xUnit syntax too.
> I would be ok with using just minitest as opposed to minitest:rspec

I would not limit us to use only MiniTest::Unit::TestCase. 
MiniTest::Spec are only a thin extension of MiniTest::Unit::TestCase. It 
maps must_* to assertions, examples to test methods and description 
blocks to TestCase classes. You can actually use whatever you want, see
https://gist.github.com/pitr-ch/dacd2081cc21092c7d2d and it all ends up 
defined as test methods.

+1 for minitest, both forms unit and spec.

>
> Partha
>
>>
>> Please again, what is the pain we are trying to solve with this? I was
>> under impression we don't like rspec syntax and wan't straightforward
>> xunit syntax, but I can see this is not the case.
>>
>> LZ
>>
>> --
>> Later,
>>
>> Lukas "lzap" Zapletal
>
> _______________________________________________
> katello-devel mailing list
> katello-devel at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel
>