[rspec-users] HTML Story Formatter

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Tue Aug 5 23:27:00 EDT 2008

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Joseph Wilk <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
>> Ahh, good to know.  Does that mean that the HTML isn't outputted until
>> all of the scenario's are ran for a particular story?
> Exactly. It made the html much nicer but did loose that per scenario
> output. I added a progress bar formatter so I could still get that
> direct scenario feedback, be it just a green dot or red F :)
> David are you happy with this html and dev-html formatter direction? If
> so I'll move this issue to lighthouse and start adding my patch.

Sorry for the long silence on this - just got back from my first
"computer-free" vacation in some years. I recommend it to everyone
(though some may wish to prepare themselves for assorted withdrawal

Anyhow - I'm not convinced one way or the other as to whether two
formatters for different audiences is better than a single html
formatter w/ some simple js to reveal backtraces. I can tell you from
my experience with FitNesse that the backtraces were sometimes
life-saving and sometimes simply annoying. Having the option to show
it but have it hidden on load would be nice.

Anybody else wanna chime in on this?

> Ben Mabey wrote:
>> Joseph Wilk wrote:
>>>> Which brings up the other question.. how do we want to handle the JS?
>>>> Due to how the HTML is written out JS is required to change the Story's
>>>> and Scenario's styles when a step fails or is pending.  I did this with
>>>> lowpro for the rspec-story-tmbundle:
>>> The current html formatter in trunk no longer requires js to apply
>>> styles for failure or pending.
>> Ahh, good to know.  Does that mean that the HTML isn't outputted until
>> all of the scenario's are ran for a particular story?
>>> So that moves us along to looking at js to hide/show the backtrace.
>>> The idea of showing the backtrace in the html has been something I've
>>> been debating for a while. I did come to conclusion that as a developer
>>> I have the build log (or terminal stories are run from) as a source for
>>> story errors. Hence I felt I was best left leaving my stories clean for
>>> the non-developer users of the stories.
>> This is true for regular development, although having the backtrace can
>> also be helpful in the HTML version if you use that as your main
>> formatter (i.e. in textmate.)
>> The real use for the backtrace, IMO, is for providing a decent build
>> artifact for CI.  Otherwise you could have to look through your test.log
>> file and try to match it up.. which would be no fun.
>>> AND
>>> advanced/verbose output (profiling each story aswell perhaps?).
>>> Potentially Aslak's new interface could move to this dev-formatter(or
>>> some other formatter) so that we continue development without disturbing
>>> those using the simple default output.
>>> What do people think?
>> I really like that idea, and I agree with you that these two would cover
>> most use cases.
>> -Ben
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

More information about the rspec-users mailing list