Catch Ruby errors before your users do. Monitor Ruby production errors in real-time and debug them in minutes, before users notice. Our open source Ruby SDK works with Rails, Sinatra, and more. Use this link and get one month free!

RubyFlow The Ruby and Rails community linklog


The Ruby and Rails community linklog

Made a library? Written a blog post? Found a useful tutorial? Share it with the Ruby community here or just enjoy what everyone else has found!

Lemon Unit Testing Framework

I just released v0.6 of Lemon, a unit testing framework that enforces a one-to-one correspondence between test cases/units and classes/methods. While still an early development release, it’s quite usable. And I’m curious to find out what others think of the approach.


the 1:1 ratio is only a very small component of good test coverage. how you write your tests is far, far more important. i’m sure i would find the constraint annoying and unnecessary at times, too. either you practice test driven development or you don’t. if you don’t, you won’t use the framework. if you do, it probably won’t help.

Thanks for the feed back, it gives me some guide to addressing some potential misconceptions.

I grant you that how you write your tests is more important. But I think your conclusion is too strict. You’ve either have written a test or you haven’t. How it ultimately got there doesn’t really matter once it is –test-driven or not. Tests are valuable even if they did not come first. TDD is a great thing, I am all for it. But it’s certainly not as simple as “you practice test driven development or you don’t” Moreover, one can do test driven development at a functional level, and then subsequently improve test coverage later with lower-level unit tests.

But all that aside, the 1:1 ratio provides a guide –to focus unit test concerns on the unit level.

Post a comment

You can use basic HTML markup (e.g. <a>) or Markdown.

As you are not logged in, you will be
directed via GitHub to signup or sign in