Hi there, for anyone who is interested, I have updated the sbtm-ruby-tools zip file on my web site at: http://www.staqs.com/sbtm/
The current version says it's 1.2, but it's a bit of a mix. I made some updates to some of the scripts last Fall but didn't get around to pushing them onto my site. Just yesterday I ran into an annoying bug when I ran the scripts on a laptop with a newer version of Ruby. It was a one-line change to fix, but this change is worth posting because the bug may cause the 2 most important scripts to *not* run on some systems.
The reason I'm posting this on my blog is to solicit feedback on these scripts. It literally took me 4 hours to create this archive tonight. The reason it took me so long was because the gap between these v1.x files and the v2.x (with the 2.x folder structure that I use on a daily basis) is getting quite large.
You see, last year I completely changed the SBTM 'Sessions' folder structure to help us manage multiple projects simultaneously. To do that, I created new BATCH files and modified ruby scripts to help us work with the different project folders. It's pretty sweet actually. I'm currently managing 3-5 project simultaneously with the SBTM 2.0 framework and it's only a few clicks to switch between any project.
Is this new framework worth sharing? I don't think so. I'm bothered by all the text files and batch scripts (it's so 20th century)... although I have come to really like all the ruby scripts that I have for all my test management needs. From one perspective, it's like a file-based database. On the other hand, it's really a bunch of disjoint text files and command-line scripts (even when you do integrate them with the Windows Explorer).
So, new stuff aside, the help I'm looking for is from someone who is actually using the v1.x SBTM Ruby scripts. Since the gap is so large between my free ones and the ones I use on a daily basis, I'd really like to get some feedback from someone on a completely different system to let me know that the scripts work as advertised.
They should work. They're pretty simple. I'd just like to confirm that.