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 Darwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] 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 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex Young Sent: Wednesday,14 May 14, 2008 11:44 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] changes to extname_spec.rb Unnikrishnan Nair wrote: > One more spec change. Could you please review line 8 of this spec, it > should read > > File.extname(".bashrc").should == ".bashrc" > > instead of > > File.extname(".bashrc").should == "" Quick question: are the specs supposed to ensure that IronRuby matches MRI's behaviour, or just that it's internally consistent? I get this in MRI's IRB: irb(main):001:0> File.extname(".bashrc") => "" Also in YARV: irb(main):002:0> File.extname(".bashrc") => "" -- Alex _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
_______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
