http://blog.txustice.me/2012/02/mutation-testing-with-mutant/
Rubinius' mutant is supposed to work with Ruby 1.9, but I haven't tried it.
Andrew
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:10 AM, ben wiseley wrote:
> interns?
>
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Iain Beeston
> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone know o
interns?
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Iain Beeston wrote:
> Does anyone know of a mutation testing tool for ruby 1.9?
>
>
> Iain
>
>
>
> On 14 May 2012 17:32, Clifford Heath wrote:
>
>> On 14/05/2012, at 4:34 PM, Iain Beeston wrote:
>> > Sounds interesting though. But I don't think I could j
Does anyone know of a mutation testing tool for ruby 1.9?
Iain
On 14 May 2012 17:32, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 14/05/2012, at 4:34 PM, Iain Beeston wrote:
> > Sounds interesting though. But I don't think I could justify it in a
> work environment unless it was really mission-critical code (
On 14/05/2012, at 4:34 PM, Iain Beeston wrote:
> Sounds interesting though. But I don't think I could justify it in a work
> environment unless it was really mission-critical code (surely this would
> break most people's tests left, right and centre?).
Of course it does - that's the whole point.
7 then 6.
Sounds interesting though. But I don't think I could justify it in a work
environment unless it was really mission-critical code (surely this would
break most people's tests left, right and centre?).
Iain
On 14 May 2012 10:04, Craig Read wrote:
> Like many others: 7 then 6.
>
>
>
Like many others: 7 then 6.
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Andrew Grimm wrote:
> I'm kind of curious. (Really!) As someone who's keen on heckle, it
> seems that not an awful lot of people use it. Why is this?
>
> 1. You don't do unit testing. You do all your unit testing in your head.
> 2. You
I believe it parses the code using ParseTree, which doesn't work on 1.9.
On 1.8, ParseTree could inspect loaded code to extract its AST; on 1.9, those
hooks are gone, and you have to parse static code listings instead (which is
what ruby_parser does).
http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/04/no-parset
>From my point of view it's reason 7 followed by 6.
Everything I'm currently working on is 1.9.
Is there something fundamental to 1.8 that prevents this gem being updated to
1.9?
-
Tim McGilchrist
@lambda_foo
http://github.com/tmcgilchrist
O
I am working an inherited code base back up to 100% test coverage,
where it should be, and then I will be using heckle. But maybe I
should use heckle along the way?
100% is easy to achieve and maintain, and lets you refactor wildly and
safely and it's basically essential for live code, in my world
I'm kind of curious. (Really!) As someone who's keen on heckle, it
seems that not an awful lot of people use it. Why is this?
1. You don't do unit testing. You do all your unit testing in your head.
2. You aren't worried about the quality of your unit tests. You
already know it's awesome / awful.
10 matches
Mail list logo
