Asp Forum - conversion aid for 1.8.7 to 1.9.x transition?

Tom Cloyd

2/26/2009 8:40:00 PM

It seems odd that I've not seen this question here before, but maybe I
missed it (or just don't get it on some deeper level!):

My current project require some libraries (e.g., CSV) that have been
altered in 1.9. It's be comforting to know that when the time comes
there's some quick way to flag the areas of my code that need attention
if they're to run OK in 1.9. Yeah, it's be great if I had a test suite.
but honestly, it's all I can do to get the code together in the first
place. Tests are high on my todo list, but my need for my current
project is higher by far, and I'm close to having a complete function
set, so tests aren't on the menu today.

So - is there some 1.8-to-1.9 scanner or whatever?

Thanks,

t.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

10 Answers

Tom Cloyd

2/28/2009 4:17:00 AM

Tom Cloyd wrote:
> It seems odd that I've not seen this question here before, but maybe I
> missed it (or just don't get it on some deeper level!):
>
> My current project require some libraries (e.g., CSV) that have been
> altered in 1.9. It's be comforting to know that when the time comes
> there's some quick way to flag the areas of my code that need
> attention if they're to run OK in 1.9. Yeah, it's be great if I had a
> test suite. but honestly, it's all I can do to get the code together
> in the first place. Tests are high on my todo list, but my need for my
> current project is higher by far, and I'm close to having a complete
> function set, so tests aren't on the menu today.
>
> So - is there some 1.8-to-1.9 scanner or whatever?
>
> Thanks,
>
> t.
>
I'm puzzled by the underwhelming response to this question. It is a
genuine one, for me, as I've not gone through a transition like this
before, being new to this programming community.

I'm just curious about how others handle, or will handle, this problem.
Surely one doesn't just launch the boat and hope there are no leaks,
yes? There has to be a better way. But...for me, it's far from obvious.

Still hoping for some response...

Tom

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jeff Schwab

2/28/2009 4:32:00 AM

Tom Cloyd wrote:
> Tom Cloyd wrote:

>> It's be comforting to know that when the time comes
>> there's some quick way to flag the areas of my code that need
>> attention if they're to run OK in 1.9. Yeah, it's be great if I had a
>> test suite. but honestly, it's all I can do to get the code together
>> in the first place.

>> So - is there some 1.8-to-1.9 scanner or whatever?

> I'm puzzled by the underwhelming response to this question.
>
> I'm just curious about how others handle, or will handle, this problem.

You appear to have answered your own question before even asking it.
I'm not a Ruby whiz, but AIUI, the only way to build robust systems with
dynamic languages is to test thoroughly.

> Surely one doesn't just launch the boat and hope there are no leaks,
> yes?

+1 Ironic

Bill Kelly

2/28/2009 5:26:00 AM

From: "Tom Cloyd" <tomcloyd@comcast.net>
>
>> [...] It's be comforting to know that when the time comes
>> there's some quick way to flag the areas of my code that need
>> attention if they're to run OK in 1.9. Yeah, it's be great if I had a
>> test suite. but honestly, it's all I can do to get the code together
>> in the first place. Tests are high on my todo list, but my need for my
>> current project is higher by far, and I'm close to having a complete
>> function set, so tests aren't on the menu today.
[...]
> Surely one doesn't just launch the boat and hope there are no leaks,
> yes? There has to be a better way.

I doubt this is the answer you were hoping for. But deferring
writing tests is not generally a strategy for completing a
working project sooner.

If your need for your current project is high, having a
supporting network of unit tests continually verifying that
your features are still working _as you develop_ new features,
is a way to go faster over time, not slower.

One effective strategy for not falling behind in writing tests,
is to write a small test first (!) to verify a bit of
functionality you are about to implement in code.

For more info, see "Test-Driven Development Cycle", at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_d...

Regards,

Bill

Tom Cloyd

2/28/2009 6:28:00 AM

Bill Kelly wrote:
>
> From: "Tom Cloyd" <tomcloyd@comcast.net>
>>
>>> [...] It's be comforting to know that when the time comes there's
>>> some quick way to flag the areas of my code that need attention if
>>> they're to run OK in 1.9. Yeah, it's be great if I had a test suite.
>>> but honestly, it's all I can do to get the code together in the
>>> first place. Tests are high on my todo list, but my need for my
>>> current project is higher by far, and I'm close to having a complete
>>> function set, so tests aren't on the menu today.
> [...]
>> Surely one doesn't just launch the boat and hope there are no leaks,
>> yes? There has to be a better way.
>
> I doubt this is the answer you were hoping for. But deferring
> writing tests is not generally a strategy for completing a
> working project sooner.
>
> If your need for your current project is high, having a
> supporting network of unit tests continually verifying that
> your features are still working _as you develop_ new features,
> is a way to go faster over time, not slower.
>
> One effective strategy for not falling behind in writing tests,
> is to write a small test first (!) to verify a bit of
> functionality you are about to implement in code.
>
> For more info, see "Test-Driven Development Cycle", at:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_d...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
Bill, Jeff - thanks. Your responses are genuinely helpful to me. I'm
highly educated in some fields, but not in this one, so I'm often in
need of guidance. I've wondered if I might have made a strategic error
by deciding to defer testing, especially when I implement a new feature
and then have to throw a bunch of ad-hoc tests at the code to make sure
I'm still advancing on all fronts. OK, I get the message. Changing
strategies, tonight. Sigh. I hope test writing goes faster than
generating the core code (which, being Ruby, really has gone rather
smoothly).

Thanks again (he says with some chagrin).

t.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bill Kelly

2/28/2009 7:47:00 AM

Tom,

From: "Tom Cloyd" <tomcloyd@comcast.net>
>
> [...] I hope test writing goes faster than
> generating the core code (which, being Ruby, really has gone
> rather smoothly).

:)

Myself, I'd been programming for about 17 years before I first
read about TDD a decade ago. To this day, I often have to
cajole myself a little bit to proceed with writing tests first,
because it's not something i find 'easy', but 'worth it'.

In the past decade I've never yet regretted writing tests
first. A number of times, however, I have come to regret
taking shortcuts with something that was supposed to be a
knock-off short-term project, where contrary to my predictions
it had morphed into a longer-term ongoing project where I
began to sorely regret having omitted writing unit tests from
the very beginning.

. . So again, I don't find TDD easy; but worth-it.

Regards,

Bill

qinzh

2/28/2009 8:15:00 AM

unsubscribe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Cloyd [mailto:tomcloyd@comcast.net]
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 2:28 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: conversion aid for 1.8.7 to 1.9.x transition?
>
> Bill Kelly wrote:
> >
> > From: "Tom Cloyd" <tomcloyd@comcast.net>
> >>
> >>> [...] It's be comforting to know that when the time comes there's
> >>> some quick way to flag the areas of my code that need attention if
> >>> they're to run OK in 1.9. Yeah, it's be great if I had a test suite.
> >>> but honestly, it's all I can do to get the code together in the
> >>> first place. Tests are high on my todo list, but my need for my
> >>> current project is higher by far, and I'm close to having a complete
> >>> function set, so tests aren't on the menu today.
> > [...]
> >> Surely one doesn't just launch the boat and hope there are no leaks,
> >> yes? There has to be a better way.
> >
> > I doubt this is the answer you were hoping for. But deferring
> > writing tests is not generally a strategy for completing a
> > working project sooner.
> >
> > If your need for your current project is high, having a
> > supporting network of unit tests continually verifying that
> > your features are still working _as you develop_ new features,
> > is a way to go faster over time, not slower.
> >
> > One effective strategy for not falling behind in writing tests,
> > is to write a small test first (!) to verify a bit of
> > functionality you are about to implement in code.
> >
> > For more info, see "Test-Driven Development Cycle", at:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_d...
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Bill, Jeff - thanks. Your responses are genuinely helpful to me. I'm
> highly educated in some fields, but not in this one, so I'm often in
> need of guidance. I've wondered if I might have made a strategic error
> by deciding to defer testing, especially when I implement a new feature
> and then have to throw a bunch of ad-hoc tests at the code to make sure
> I'm still advancing on all fronts. OK, I get the message. Changing
> strategies, tonight. Sigh. I hope test writing goes faster than
> generating the core code (which, being Ruby, really has gone rather
> smoothly).
>
> Thanks again (he says with some chagrin).
>
> t.
>
> --
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
> Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
> << tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
> << TomCloyd.com >> (website)
> << sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

Tom Cloyd

2/28/2009 7:16:00 PM

Bill Kelly wrote:
> Tom,
>
> From: "Tom Cloyd" <tomcloyd@comcast.net>
>>
>> [...] I hope test writing goes faster than generating the core code
>> (which, being Ruby, really has gone
>> rather smoothly).
>
> :)
>
> Myself, I'd been programming for about 17 years before I first
> read about TDD a decade ago. To this day, I often have to
> cajole myself a little bit to proceed with writing tests first,
> because it's not something i find 'easy', but 'worth it'.
>
> In the past decade I've never yet regretted writing tests
> first. A number of times, however, I have come to regret taking
> shortcuts with something that was supposed to be a
> knock-off short-term project, where contrary to my predictions
> it had morphed into a longer-term ongoing project where I
> began to sorely regret having omitted writing unit tests from
> the very beginning.
>
> . . . So again, I don't find TDD easy; but worth-it.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
Thanks Bill. I appreciate reading about your experience. Perhaps I can
shortcut my own development a bit, with help from more experienced folks
such as you.

t.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEMO

10/3/2013 11:12:00 PM

On 10/3/2013 1:02 PM, John Manning wrote:
> On 10/3/2013 3:47 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
>> On 10/3/2013 10:44 AM, Joe Cooper wrote:
>>> Children don't vote, they can't donate to campaigns, and they don't
>>> control the media, so why would Harry care?
>>>
>>> Yesterday, during a press conference, CNN's Dana Bash had a simple
>>> question for Harry Reid. Republicans in the House were promising to pass
>>> a CR funding the National Institutes of Health - thus allowing NIH
>>> research into childhood cancer to continue despite the shutdown - and
>>> Bash wanted to know if Reid and his cronies would allow it to pass the
>>> Senate.
>>>
>>> After all, it would take a cruel, hubristic, thug to deny funding that
>>> could potentially save the life of an 8 year old with leukemia, right?
>>>
>>> ?You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical
>>> trials,? Bash pointed out. ?The House is presumably going to pass a bill
>>> funds at least the NIH. Given what you?ve said, will you at least pass
>>> that? And if not, aren?t you playing the same political games that
>>> Republicans are?
>>>
>>> Reid was indignant.
>>>
>>> ?Listen," he barked. "Sen. Durbin explained that very well. And he
>>> did it
>>> here. He did it on the floor earlier - as did Sen. Schumer. What right
>>> did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be
>>> funded? It?s obvious what?s going on here. You talk about reckless and
>>> irresponsible. Wow! What this is all about is Obamacare. They are
>>> obsessed. I don?t know what other word I can use. I don?t know what
>>> other
>>> word I can use. They are obsessed with this Obamacare. It?s working.
>>> It?s
>>> working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more
>>> than they do now by far. "
>>>
>>> "But," Bash countered "If you can help one child who has cancer, why
>>> wouldn?t you do it?"
>>>
>>> At this point, Reid still had a chance. There was still the possibility
>>> that he could turn it around, and not make himself look like the
>>> unfeeling big-government vermin we all know him to be. Reid failed to
>>> save his bacon.
>>>
>>> "Why would we want to do that?" Reid said angrily. "I have 1,100 people
>>> at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems
>>> of their own. To have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing
>>> maybe means you?re irresponsible and reckless."
>>>
>>> Here, we finally have some truth from the left. To a man like Harry
>>> Reid, who sees the world only in terms of political gamesmanship, kids
>>> are either pawns or burdens. Why would he want to save one child?
>>> Children can't vote, they don't donate to campaigns, and they have no
>>> power in the national news media.
>>>
>>> Remember earlier this year when an 11-year-old Pennsylvania girl
>>> needed a
>>> lung transplant? Dems like HHS director Kathleen Sebilius said, hey
>>> "Some
>>> people live. Some people die." In her mind, rules and politics trumped
>>> children. That's what Sebilius believed then, and it's what Harry Reid
>>> thinks today.
>>>
>>> The fact that Reid is advancing an equivocation between children
>>> fighting
>>> cancer and non-essential civilian Air Force personnel being forced to
>>> take a few days off is stunning in its inhumanity.
>>>
>>> So, to answer Harry's point: YES. Conservatives are furious about
>>> Obamacare. Why would anyone want a gang of heartless bureaucrats
>>> involved with their health care, when they have such a monstrous track
>>> record?
>>>
>>> Here's the video (apologies if it starts by itself) and be sure to
>>> "like" Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You'll
>>> be glad you did.
>>>
>>> VIDEO: http://www.caintv.com/harry-reid-why-would...
>>>
>> So you accuse Reid of political gamesmanship while your side is engaged
>> in even larger political gamesmanship? That's funny.
>>
>> If you and yours cared about sick kids, you'd support Obamacare so every
>> kid would have access to health care.
>>
>> I wonder whether you noticed that the Republicans are picking and
>> choosing things to fund in order to make themselves look charitable,
>> merciful, and interested in the unwashed. It's not going to work with
>> anyone outside your 'bagger bubble.
>
>
> The above article is again. originally from the extremist fringe wacko
> website
> Canada Free Press - http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art...
>
> Obama-hating serial liar, 'Joe Cooper' is totally incapable of providing
> anything that's
> actually factual.

Ooh, the faggot brigade is up in arms! Eek!
<snigger>

Michael Ejercito

10/4/2013 5:21:00 AM

"CUNTICA" <brianlambskysbignose@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:l2ktk6$bq6$3@news.mixmin.net...
> On 10/3/2013 1:02 PM, John Manning wrote:
>> On 10/3/2013 3:47 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>> On 10/3/2013 10:44 AM, Joe Cooper wrote:
>>>> Children don't vote, they can't donate to campaigns, and they don't
>>>> control the media, so why would Harry care?
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday, during a press conference, CNN's Dana Bash had a simple
>>>> question for Harry Reid. Republicans in the House were promising to
>>>> pass
>>>> a CR funding the National Institutes of Health - thus allowing NIH
>>>> research into childhood cancer to continue despite the shutdown - and
>>>> Bash wanted to know if Reid and his cronies would allow it to pass the
>>>> Senate.
>>>>
>>>> After all, it would take a cruel, hubristic, thug to deny funding that
>>>> could potentially save the life of an 8 year old with leukemia, right?
>>>>
>>>> ?You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical
>>>> trials,? Bash pointed out. ?The House is presumably going to pass a
>>>> bill
>>>> funds at least the NIH. Given what you?ve said, will you at least pass
>>>> that? And if not, aren?t you playing the same political games that
>>>> Republicans are?
>>>>
>>>> Reid was indignant.
>>>>
>>>> ?Listen," he barked. "Sen. Durbin explained that very well. And he
>>>> did it
>>>> here. He did it on the floor earlier - as did Sen. Schumer. What right
>>>> did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be
>>>> funded? It?s obvious what?s going on here. You talk about reckless and
>>>> irresponsible. Wow! What this is all about is Obamacare. They are
>>>> obsessed. I don?t know what other word I can use. I don?t know what
>>>> other
>>>> word I can use. They are obsessed with this Obamacare. It?s working.
>>>> It?s
>>>> working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more
>>>> than they do now by far. "
>>>>
>>>> "But," Bash countered "If you can help one child who has cancer, why
>>>> wouldn?t you do it?"
>>>>
>>>> At this point, Reid still had a chance. There was still the
>>>> possibility
>>>> that he could turn it around, and not make himself look like the
>>>> unfeeling big-government vermin we all know him to be. Reid failed to
>>>> save his bacon.
>>>>
>>>> "Why would we want to do that?" Reid said angrily. "I have 1,100 people
>>>> at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few
>>>> problems
>>>> of their own. To have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing
>>>> maybe means you?re irresponsible and reckless."
>>>>
>>>> Here, we finally have some truth from the left. To a man like Harry
>>>> Reid, who sees the world only in terms of political gamesmanship, kids
>>>> are either pawns or burdens. Why would he want to save one child?
>>>> Children can't vote, they don't donate to campaigns, and they have no
>>>> power in the national news media.
>>>>
>>>> Remember earlier this year when an 11-year-old Pennsylvania girl
>>>> needed a
>>>> lung transplant? Dems like HHS director Kathleen Sebilius said, hey
>>>> "Some
>>>> people live. Some people die." In her mind, rules and politics trumped
>>>> children. That's what Sebilius believed then, and it's what Harry Reid
>>>> thinks today.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that Reid is advancing an equivocation between children
>>>> fighting
>>>> cancer and non-essential civilian Air Force personnel being forced to
>>>> take a few days off is stunning in its inhumanity.
>>>>
>>>> So, to answer Harry's point: YES. Conservatives are furious about
>>>> Obamacare. Why would anyone want a gang of heartless bureaucrats
>>>> involved with their health care, when they have such a monstrous track
>>>> record?
>>>>
>>>> Here's the video (apologies if it starts by itself) and be sure to
>>>> "like" Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You'll
>>>> be glad you did.
>>>>
>>>> VIDEO: http://www.caintv.com/harry-reid-why-would...
>>>>
>>> So you accuse Reid of political gamesmanship while your side is engaged
>>> in even larger political gamesmanship? That's funny.
>>>
>>> If you and yours cared about sick kids, you'd support Obamacare so every
>>> kid would have access to health care.
>>>
>>> I wonder whether you noticed that the Republicans are picking and
>>> choosing things to fund in order to make themselves look charitable,
>>> merciful, and interested in the unwashed. It's not going to work with
>>> anyone outside your 'bagger bubble.
>>
>>
>> The above article is again. originally from the extremist fringe wacko
>> website
>> Canada Free Press - http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art...
>>
>> Obama-hating serial liar, 'Joe Cooper' is totally incapable of providing
>> anything that's
>> actually factual.
>
> Ooh, the faggot brigade is up in arms! Eek!
> <snigger>
Here is the truth.

http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/10/03/ten-ethics-observations-on-the-government-...

Michael

Joe Cooper

10/4/2013 5:56:00 PM

John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in news:rI2dnTG9z8
_NUNDPnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com:

> The above article is again. originally from the extremist fringe wacko
> website
> Canada Free Press - http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art...
>
> Obama-hating serial liar, 'Joe Cooper' is totally incapable of
providing
> anything that's
> actually factual.

Permit me to translate for the manningite-challenged among us:

"I, John Manning, did not watch the video clip from the Dana Bash CNN
interview of Dirty Harry. That video proved that the comments by the
author were accurate and factual."

You're welcome, John.

--
"Work Harder, Millions of Obama Voters Depend On You" Get the T-Shirt -
http://www.cafepress.com/ObamaVotersD...

"What a creep Obama is." (Ben Stein)

"Beaurat Obama has lowered American esteem on the world stage to a point
somewhere below a septic tank. Obama?s personal reputation bears the
obvious stains of that tank?s leakage." (Richard J. ?Sarge? Garwood)

comp.lang.ruby

conversion aid for 1.8.7 to 1.9.x transition?

Tom Cloyd

Tom Cloyd

Jeff Schwab

Bill Kelly

Tom Cloyd

Bill Kelly

qinzh

Tom Cloyd

NEMO

Michael Ejercito

Joe Cooper

x Login to ForumsZone