Skip to content

Conversation

@paracycle
Copy link
Member

Now that this gem is on Minitest 6, we are able to use its own runner for running tests. So, I created a binstub for the minitest command exported from the minitest gem and renamed it to bin/test. This way, we can continue to use the (almost) same command line interface for running tests, but we also get running tests by line number too 🎉

Additionally, since Minitest no longer automatically registers plugins, we need to fix up how we register Minitest reporters that we were registering.

Now that this gem is on Minitest 6, we are able to use its own runner
for running tests. So, I created a binstub for the `minitest` command
exported from the `minitest` gem and renamed it to `bin/test`. This way,
we can continue to use the (almost) same command line interface for
running tests, but we also get running tests by line number too 🎉

Additionally, since Minitest no longer automatically registers plugins,
we need to fix up how we register Minitest reporters that we were
registering.
@paracycle paracycle requested a review from Morriar January 13, 2026 18:50
@paracycle paracycle requested a review from a team as a code owner January 13, 2026 18:50
require "minitest/autorun"
require "minitest/reporters"
require "minitest/minitest_reporter_plugin"
Minitest.register_plugin(:minitest_reporter)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we still need the reporter?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes! This is for registering Minitest Reporters' plugin to Minitest (which used to be automatic previously), but we still need to set the reporter, etc after that.

In the next release of minitest-reporters this should be done automatically inside the library. For now, we need to do it explicitly.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I mean, do we still need the reporter itself?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, maybe not. Without the reporter, all you get is the dots for each test. I thought you wanted to keep the spec style reporting.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No it's me being confused, since I saw just dots in the output before this PR, but indeed the output is much better with the reporter enabled 👍

Though, iirc it's a bit buggy with parallelism like in Tapioca?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I haven't seen this one be that buggy, tbh, we can always change it if it is.

@paracycle paracycle merged commit 6a3d334 into main Jan 13, 2026
8 checks passed
@paracycle paracycle deleted the uk-improve-tests branch January 13, 2026 20:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants