Re: Re: JRuby on Rails

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Ahmed Mohombe defenestrated me:

> >Really it comes down to finding "small interpreter failings".  Rails 
> >really stresses JRuby.  Pick a rails thing (I did *some* work toward 
> >getting webrick running with an "empty app"), and run it.  When something 
> >fails, figure out why by digging through the Ruby code until you can 
> >narrow the failure down to a small case.  The vast majority of these turn 
> >out to be easy to fix, but you'll spend hours trying to make a small 
> >example of it.
> Hmm, isn't there a better approach (and less painful) ? E.g. using ready 
> made test cases like those for Ruby itself or even RoR? - so that one 
> doesn't "invent" new "small cases" but is using the existing one, thus 
> being much more productive?

  Well if you can find any test case which doesn't work and you think
it is a reason why RoR is not working then that is great.  Generally,
we are not finding that.  We just run some portion of RoR and realize 
that something is not working...then we triage...then make small test 
case.  Coverage of Ruby is not so great from a unit test perspective.

  There are still plenty of unit tests in Ruby which do not work, but
correlating them with RoR is not trivial.

-Tom

-- 
+ http://www.tc.umn.edu/~enebo +---- mailto:enebo@xxxxxxx ----+
| Thomas E Enebo, Protagonist  | "Luck favors the prepared    |
|                              |  mind." -Louis Pasteur       |


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642