[rspec-devel] Multiple formatters

Scott Taylor mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com
Wed May 2 20:08:58 EDT 2007


On May 1, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Scott Taylor wrote:

>
> On May 1, 2007, at 7:45 AM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>> On 5/1/07, Scott Taylor <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:41 AM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> RSpec supports multiple formatters, but currently you can only
>>>> use one
>>>> at a time. I really need to use several at the same time.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to make RSpec handle several --format options. However,
>>>> that
>>>> would require some rethinking of how/where output is written - it
>>>> can't all go to the same stream (file or stdout).
>>>>
>>>> So I'm thinking of making --format take a composite argument:
>>>>
>>>> --format html:/path/to/index.html --format rdoc:/path/to/index.rdoc
>>>> --format progress
>>>>
>>>> If nothing comes after the format, output is STDOUT, so this
>>>> would be
>>>> backwards compatible.
>>>>
>>>> If we do this, we could also get rid of --failures - it would
>>>> just be
>>>> a special formatter.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rspec-devel mailing list
>>>> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>>>
>>>
>>> I've seen that you've already implemented this in trunk.
>>>
>>> I'm not running the latest version of trunk, but I've noticed  
>>> that in
>>> 0.9RC1, when specifying a failures file and an examples file, that
>>> the following behavior is exhibited by rspec:
>>>
>>> 1. If the file exists, but is empty, rspec will run all specs
>>> 2. If the file exists, but contains failing examples, these failing
>>> specs will be run
>>> 3. If the file does not exists, it creates the file (through --
>>> failures  - now --format e:filename), but runs no specs.
>>>
>>> Would a patch addressing the third case (which would mimic the first
>>> case) be a welcome addition to rspec?
>>>
>>
>> It would, but how do you suggest that RSpec guesses that you meant a
>> file, and not the name of a behaviour or example?
>
> I would assume that this would be the case if:
>
> 1. There is a failing examples or failing behavior formatter, with at
> @where != out
> 2. and that an "example" has the same name as the formatter's @where
> 3. (and of course)...that the examples/failures file does not yet  
> exist
>
> In this case, the example could just be removed from the list.
> Obviously this must go on after the ::OptionParser#parse method is
> called.
>
> So tell me if I'm missing something obvious, but it would seem very
> strange if one chose a failures file with the same name as an
> example, wouldn't it?  It could be done, but who ever dream of doing
> so?  Who would create a file with a name like "should do such and
> such" as the name of their failures file?


Do you think it would be acceptable to remove the appropriate example  
when the File is empty?

Scott



More information about the rspec-devel mailing list