Gem is missing its README and tests.

[timaro]

We noticed today that your gem doesn't have a README or tests, except on github (https://www.omniref.com/ruby/gems/test_after_commit/0.2.4). Using git ls-file is causing your packaged gem to omit it -- the code is only looking under lib for files to include in the gem.

Bundler now evaluates the source files for your gem when you run bundle package --all (rubygems/bundler#2287), so it's better to do something like this in your gemspec:

s.files         = Dir['Readme.md', 'lib/**/*']
s.test_files    = Dir['specs/**/*.rb']

[grosser]

Trying to ship as little files as necessary

[timaro]

That makes no sense at all. Is this because you enjoy being incompatible with all existing ruby gems, or are you being personally billed for the extra 1kb that including these standard files would cost?

-tim

On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Michael Grosser notifications@github.com wrote:

Trying to ship as little files as necessary

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[grosser]

I makes sense to me to ship as little "code" as necessary and have all
"docs" on github. Also I'm surely not incompatible (inconsistent ?) with
"all" existing rubygems since I have released ~100 gems that way and
convinced a few others to do the same. Transmission of gems adds up when
doing big bundles and makes git repos that vendor them bigger/slower to
download, so I like to avoid it.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Tim Robertson notifications@github.com
wrote:

That makes no sense at all. Is this because you enjoy being incompatible
with all existing ruby gems, or are you being personally billed for the
extra 1kb that including these standard files would cost?

-tim

On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Michael Grosser notifications@github.com
wrote:

Trying to ship as little files as necessary

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#25 (comment)
.

[grosser]

and also no tests shipped with rails :)
https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activesupport/activesupport.gemspec

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Michael Grosser <grosser.michael@gmail.com

wrote:

I makes sense to me to ship as little "code" as necessary and have all
"docs" on github. Also I'm surely not incompatible (inconsistent ?) with
"all" existing rubygems since I have released ~100 gems that way and
convinced a few others to do the same. Transmission of gems adds up when
doing big bundles and makes git repos that vendor them bigger/slower to
download, so I like to avoid it.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Tim Robertson notifications@github.com
wrote:

That makes no sense at all. Is this because you enjoy being incompatible
with all existing ruby gems, or are you being personally billed for the
extra 1kb that including these standard files would cost?

-tim

On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Michael Grosser notifications@github.com
wrote:

Trying to ship as little files as necessary

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#25 (comment)
.

[timaro]

I honestly don't care as much if you include tests...but most gems do, because developers do sometimes need to run them. rubygems.org has a whole section on what should be in a gem:

http://guides.rubygems.org/what-is-a-gem/

-tim

(sent from my iPad Shuffle)

On Jul 18, 2014, at 10:29 PM, Michael Grosser notifications@github.com wrote:

and also no tests shipped with rails :)
https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activesupport/activesupport.gemspec

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Michael Grosser <grosser.michael@gmail.com

wrote:

I makes sense to me to ship as little "code" as necessary and have all
"docs" on github. Also I'm surely not incompatible (inconsistent ?) with
"all" existing rubygems since I have released ~100 gems that way and
convinced a few others to do the same. Transmission of gems adds up when
doing big bundles and makes git repos that vendor them bigger/slower to
download, so I like to avoid it.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Tim Robertson notifications@github.com
wrote:

That makes no sense at all. Is this because you enjoy being incompatible
with all existing ruby gems, or are you being personally billed for the
extra 1kb that including these standard files would cost?

-tim

On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Michael Grosser notifications@github.com
wrote:

Trying to ship as little files as necessary

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#25 (comment)
.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[grosser]

Have you (or anyone you know) ever ran tests inside a gem ?
I never did and I never even looked at them and I don't know anyone who
ever ran them.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Tim Robertson notifications@github.com
wrote:

I honestly don't care as much if you include tests...but most gems do,
because developers do sometimes need to run them. rubygems.org has a
whole section on what should be in a gem:

http://guides.rubygems.org/what-is-a-gem/

-tim

(sent from my iPad Shuffle)

On Jul 18, 2014, at 10:29 PM, Michael Grosser notifications@github.com
wrote:

and also no tests shipped with rails :)

https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activesupport/activesupport.gemspec

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Michael Grosser <
grosser.michael@gmail.com

wrote:

I makes sense to me to ship as little "code" as necessary and have all
"docs" on github. Also I'm surely not incompatible (inconsistent ?)
with
"all" existing rubygems since I have released ~100 gems that way and
convinced a few others to do the same. Transmission of gems adds up
when
doing big bundles and makes git repos that vendor them bigger/slower
to
download, so I like to avoid it.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Tim Robertson <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

That makes no sense at all. Is this because you enjoy being
incompatible
with all existing ruby gems, or are you being personally billed for
the
extra 1kb that including these standard files would cost?

-tim

On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Michael Grosser <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

Trying to ship as little files as necessary

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<
https://github.com/grosser/test_after_commit/issues/25#issuecomment-49499972>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#25 (comment)
.

[timaro]

Yes. Many times.

There are obviously valid reasons for choosing not to include test suites
in gems -- for example, when they're massive (i.e. rails' tests), or when
they depend on complicated external machinery -- but it's one of those
things where you do it if it's reasonable, because it's a basic utility
that allows a developer to confirm that your code works on their system.

Again, though, I don't personally care that much if you choose not to
include your tests in your distribution. But a README file is tiny, it's in
99.99% of all gems, and pretty much everyone assumes they'll find one when
they navigate to your code in their editor. (And, yes, it would allow your
gems to look good on our site -- which seems like a positive thing to me,
but I'm biased.)

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Michael Grosser notifications@github.com
wrote:

Have you (or anyone you know) ever ran tests inside a gem ?
I never did and I never even looked at them and I don't know anyone who
ever ran them.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Tim Robertson notifications@github.com

wrote:

I honestly don't care as much if you include tests...but most gems do,
because developers do sometimes need to run them. rubygems.org has a
whole section on what should be in a gem:

http://guides.rubygems.org/what-is-a-gem/

-tim

(sent from my iPad Shuffle)

On Jul 18, 2014, at 10:29 PM, Michael Grosser <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

and also no tests shipped with rails :)

https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activesupport/activesupport.gemspec

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Michael Grosser <
grosser.michael@gmail.com

wrote:

I makes sense to me to ship as little "code" as necessary and have
all
"docs" on github. Also I'm surely not incompatible (inconsistent ?)
with
"all" existing rubygems since I have released ~100 gems that way and
convinced a few others to do the same. Transmission of gems adds up
when
doing big bundles and makes git repos that vendor them bigger/slower
to
download, so I like to avoid it.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Tim Robertson <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

That makes no sense at all. Is this because you enjoy being
incompatible
with all existing ruby gems, or are you being personally billed for
the
extra 1kb that including these standard files would cost?

-tim

On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Michael Grosser <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

Trying to ship as little files as necessary

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<

https://github.com/grosser/test_after_commit/issues/25#issuecomment-49499972>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<
https://github.com/grosser/test_after_commit/issues/25#issuecomment-49500305>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#25 (comment)
.

[grosser]

Included Readme.md in 0.2.5

This whole test thing still sounds weird to me,
if they fail, then you don't install/use the gem ?

I'd imagine most gems tests fail ... most don't even run after a clean
checkout and bundle ...

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Tim Robertson notifications@github.com
wrote:

Yes. Many times.

There are obviously valid reasons for choosing not to include test suites
in gems -- for example, when they're massive (i.e. rails' tests), or when
they depend on complicated external machinery -- but it's one of those
things where you do it if it's reasonable, because it's a basic utility
that allows a developer to confirm that your code works on their system.

Again, though, I don't personally care that much if you choose not to
include your tests in your distribution. But a README file is tiny, it's
in
99.99% of all gems, and pretty much everyone assumes they'll find one when
they navigate to your code in their editor. (And, yes, it would allow your
gems to look good on our site -- which seems like a positive thing to me,
but I'm biased.)

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Michael Grosser <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

Have you (or anyone you know) ever ran tests inside a gem ?
I never did and I never even looked at them and I don't know anyone who
ever ran them.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Tim Robertson <
notifications@github.com>

wrote:

I honestly don't care as much if you include tests...but most gems do,
because developers do sometimes need to run them. rubygems.org has a
whole section on what should be in a gem:

http://guides.rubygems.org/what-is-a-gem/

-tim

(sent from my iPad Shuffle)

On Jul 18, 2014, at 10:29 PM, Michael Grosser <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

and also no tests shipped with rails :)

https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activesupport/activesupport.gemspec

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Michael Grosser <
grosser.michael@gmail.com

wrote:

I makes sense to me to ship as little "code" as necessary and have
all
"docs" on github. Also I'm surely not incompatible (inconsistent
?)
with
"all" existing rubygems since I have released ~100 gems that way
and
convinced a few others to do the same. Transmission of gems adds
up
when
doing big bundles and makes git repos that vendor them
bigger/slower
to
download, so I like to avoid it.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Tim Robertson <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

That makes no sense at all. Is this because you enjoy being
incompatible
with all existing ruby gems, or are you being personally billed
for
the
extra 1kb that including these standard files would cost?

-tim

On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Michael Grosser <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

Trying to ship as little files as necessary

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<

https://github.com/grosser/test_after_commit/issues/25#issuecomment-49499972>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<

https://github.com/grosser/test_after_commit/issues/25#issuecomment-49500305>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<
https://github.com/grosser/test_after_commit/issues/25#issuecomment-49500364>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#25 (comment)
.

[timaro]

I've definitely used tests that way on questionable code -- if I'm not sure
of the quality of the work, I'll do a local gem install and run the test
suite, and use a failure as a negative indicator of quality.

But more often, I'll run a test suite because I'm chasing down a bug, or
because I'm wanting to verify something.

Anyway, thanks for including the Readme. We'll pull it in on our next
update.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Michael Grosser notifications@github.com
wrote:

Included Readme.md in 0.2.5

This whole test thing still sounds weird to me,
if they fail, then you don't install/use the gem ?

I'd imagine most gems tests fail ... most don't even run after a clean
checkout and bundle ...

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Tim Robertson notifications@github.com

wrote:

Yes. Many times.

There are obviously valid reasons for choosing not to include test
suites
in gems -- for example, when they're massive (i.e. rails' tests), or
when
they depend on complicated external machinery -- but it's one of those
things where you do it if it's reasonable, because it's a basic utility
that allows a developer to confirm that your code works on their system.

Again, though, I don't personally care that much if you choose not to
include your tests in your distribution. But a README file is tiny, it's
in
99.99% of all gems, and pretty much everyone assumes they'll find one
when
they navigate to your code in their editor. (And, yes, it would allow
your
gems to look good on our site -- which seems like a positive thing to
me,
but I'm biased.)

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Michael Grosser <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

Have you (or anyone you know) ever ran tests inside a gem ?
I never did and I never even looked at them and I don't know anyone
who
ever ran them.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Tim Robertson <
notifications@github.com>

wrote:

I honestly don't care as much if you include tests...but most gems
do,
because developers do sometimes need to run them. rubygems.org has
a
whole section on what should be in a gem:

http://guides.rubygems.org/what-is-a-gem/

-tim

(sent from my iPad Shuffle)

On Jul 18, 2014, at 10:29 PM, Michael Grosser <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

and also no tests shipped with rails :)

https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activesupport/activesupport.gemspec

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Michael Grosser <
grosser.michael@gmail.com

wrote:

I makes sense to me to ship as little "code" as necessary and
have
all
"docs" on github. Also I'm surely not incompatible (inconsistent
?)
with
"all" existing rubygems since I have released ~100 gems that way
and
convinced a few others to do the same. Transmission of gems adds
up
when
doing big bundles and makes git repos that vendor them
bigger/slower
to
download, so I like to avoid it.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Tim Robertson <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

That makes no sense at all. Is this because you enjoy being
incompatible
with all existing ruby gems, or are you being personally billed
for
the
extra 1kb that including these standard files would cost?

-tim

On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Michael Grosser <
notifications@github.com>
wrote:

Trying to ship as little files as necessary

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<

https://github.com/grosser/test_after_commit/issues/25#issuecomment-49499972>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<

https://github.com/grosser/test_after_commit/issues/25#issuecomment-49500305>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<

https://github.com/grosser/test_after_commit/issues/25#issuecomment-49500364>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<
https://github.com/grosser/test_after_commit/issues/25#issuecomment-49501168>

.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#25 (comment)
.

[timaro]

we've indexed every version of every gem, and yours are among the <.1% of gems that don't include any documentation or tests. so yes, your gems don't follow community guidelines. you're in the tiny, tiny minority.

even if you believe in tying yourself to a single proprietary host (why?), there are dozens of community tools that depend on the existence or readme files, not to mention he fact that programmers everywhere expect to be able to read your code without going to github.

On Jul 18, 2014, at 10:27 PM, Michael Grosser notifications@github.com wrote:

I makes sense to me to ship as little "code" as necessary and have all
"docs" on github. Also I'm surely not incompatible (inconsistent ?) with
"all" existing rubygems since I have released ~100 gems that way and
convinced a few others to do the same. Transmission of gems adds up when
doing big bundles and makes git repos that vendor them bigger/slower to
download, so I like to avoid it.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Tim Robertson notifications@github.com
wrote:

That makes no sense at all. Is this because you enjoy being incompatible
with all existing ruby gems, or are you being personally billed for the
extra 1kb that including these standard files would cost?

-tim

On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Michael Grosser notifications@github.com
wrote:

Trying to ship as little files as necessary

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#25 (comment)
.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.