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

[Dmitri Dolguikh]

On 09/03/13 01:43 PM, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> On 03/08/2013 10:54 AM, Jordan OMara wrote:
>> On 08/03/13 10:44 -0500, Brad Buckingham wrote:
>>>
>>> As for all of the existing rspec tests, my 2cents is,
>>> - if a test requires updates (e.g. as app changes), it could be
>>> removed from rspec and added to minitest
>>> - if a developer wants to 'on the side' rewrite tests in minitest,
>>> that's ok, but I wouldn't make that a focus given we have a lot of
>>> features that should get priority
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> katello-devel mailing list
>> katello-devel at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel
>>
> Why are we adding a new testing framework? Is it fixing a problem in 
> the current frameworks?

Already happened as part of pulp v.2 work. I think the view of the folks 
who did the work is that mini-test (test::unit) leads to more readable 
tests compared to rspec. I'll let those involved speak for themselves...

-d

>
> -- bk
>
> _______________________________________________
> katello-devel mailing list
> katello-devel at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel