[rspec-users] Interesting shared behaviour side-effect
dchelimsky at gmail.com
Sun Oct 21 09:34:20 EDT 2007
On 10/21/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2007, at 1:42 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
> > That's how we do it because we don't have the facet facility. For now,
> > however, there are too many other moving parts to consider the
> > additional layer. I would definitely consider it down the road.
> That's ok, I was asking because I was happy to prepare a patch for
> it. If I get a few hours I'll have another go. The internals of
> RSpec don't look much like the external DSL, that's why it was taking
> me a while to figure out where everything has to go (in the specs
> that is, the code isn't too hard).
> Is it worth me working on this? It's something I'd really like.
Please wait on this. As I said earlier this thread, there are too many
moving parts right now. Story Runner is still very new (not yet
released) and our plan is to use the Spec Runner formats for Story
Runner so the output looks uniform whether you're running Stories or
Specs in any supported format (plain text/html/textmate, etc). Until
that (which is higher priority than adding facets) is resolved, I
don't want to complicate what's there now.
Once that is resolved, however, I'll be happy to entertain this idea.
> While I'm thinking about it - in an ideal world, would better output be:
> - facet one: example one
> - facet one: example two
> - facet two: example three
> - facet two: facet three: example four
> - facet one
> - example one
> - example two
> - facet two
> - example three
> - facet three
> - example four
I think that in the end we'd want the latter. Don't forget that this
will require changes to the html formatters as well as plain text.
More information about the rspec-users