[rspec-users] rspec_on_rails' spec:doc and dry runs

Chad Humphries chad at spicycode.com
Tue May 22 11:18:23 EDT 2007


Phil,

I wrote that bit o' code (the plugin at spicycode).   I haven't actually used
the dry-run mode before.  I'll dig in and see what I can find about the
issue.

Chad

On 5/22/07, Phil O Despotos <philodespotos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In rspec_on_rails, the spec:doc task uses --dry-run, which doesn't
> jive well with rspec's ability to write docs for you.
>
> For example, I use the rspec_expectation_matchers plugin from
> spicycode.com (scanned for a name, didn't find one =), and end up
> writing specs like:
>
>     it { @ticket.should validate_presence_of(:name) }
>
> Which results in specdocs such as:
>
>   Ticket
>   - NO NAME (Because of --dry-run)
>   - NO NAME (Because of --dry-run)
>   - NO NAME (Because of --dry-run)
>
> The examples_specdoc task for rspec itself, however, doesn't use
> --dry-run.
>
> Using dry runs presumably speeds things up significantly, but results
> in "broken" docs when using one of rspec's handiest features. Should
> this be considered proper default behavior?
>
> Replacing the task is easy enough, so there's a good case for dry runs
> being the default behavior. I'm just curious.
>
> Kyle
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070522/e99b4da6/attachment.html 


More information about the rspec-users mailing list