[rspec-users] Any plans for Before-feature or Before-all steps in Cucumber?

Ben Mabey ben at benmabey.com
Thu Dec 4 11:55:26 EST 2008


aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Joseph Wilk 
> <josephwilk at joesniff.co.uk <mailto:josephwilk at joesniff.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ashley Moran
>     <ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk
>     <mailto:ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>
>         On 3 Dec 2008, at 16:59, Ben Mabey wrote:
>
>             I agree with Ashley.  In the past I have done multiple
>             profiles just as Joseph has suggested.  I have then
>             modified my features task to serially run my different
>             feature sets and profiles.  With that you do have one task
>             you need to run.  However, it would still be very nice if
>             these different profile types, even if not ran as the same
>             process, could be grouped into a single report and given
>             then appearance that it was one large process.  I
>             understand the problems and difficulties of doing such a
>             thing, but WDYT?  If we think there is enough value in
>             such an aggregate feature set  runner/report and we can
>             decide on the details then I would be willing to tackle it.
>
>
>     I think a nice way to facilitate one report from multiple cucumber
>     runs is useful.
>
>
> I think the way to go is to have a YAML formatter that can spit out 
> reports as YAML. Then several YAML reports can be read in.

Yeah, that was actually exactly what I was thinking!
>
> My plan with the AST work is that the AST itself stores the results, 
> so it can be serialised and deserialised. This will make concatenating 
> several reports much easier.

Ahh, I see. So the report concatenatenater would just have to load up 
all of the serialised ASTs and send them to one formatter?  So, I'm 
guessing you want to wait on this until after the AST work is done...  
I'll open up a ticket in lighthouse for this regardless.

-Ben

>  
>
>
>     I'm currently resorting to 'cat'ing (yuck!) the different Cucumber
>     reports to get one html report in the features rake task.
>
>     Currently when you pass '--out file' to Cucumber it truncates the
>     file. We could have it open the file for appending. That sounds
>     like a simple solution to forming one report from multiple runs.
>
>     You would still get the (minor) problem I have when 'cat'ing the
>     files (HTML reports with multiple html heads).
>      
>
>
>
>     >given then appearance that it was one large process.
>
>     Where you thinking about giving the appearance of one process at
>     the report level or the rake level?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         Sounds like there's two issues here.  One is grouping features
>         into run sets (eg fast-running, slow-running; needs an
>         external service, is self-contained) the other is running
>         features in a certain mode (eg against mock-services, against
>         live services; using HTML interface, using XML interface).
>
>         One solution to the first problem could be tagging the
>         features/scenarios:
>
>         Feature: blah
>          Groups: slow
>          As a...
>
>          Scenario: blah
>            Groups: twitter web
>
>         Or something.  Maybe?
>
>
>     We currently have an issue on tagging but it will have to wait
>     until Aslak has done his AST magic.
>
>
> Just a heads up - planning to get started on this around Dec 15th.
>  
>
>
>     http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211/tickets/54-tagging-scenarios
>
>
>
>     --
>     Joseph Wilk
>     http://blog.josephwilk.net
>      
>
>
>
>         The second problem currently has to be handled as separate
>         Cucumber rake tasks with different --require options to load
>         different steps.  I don't have any multi-mode features though,
>         so I haven't had to worry about this yet.  I suspect the
>         general problem (given all the potential dimensions you could
>         create) is currently unspecified and the general solution is
>         quite hard...
>
>         I still think having an authoritative 'rake features' is
>         essential, though.
>
>
>
>      
>
>
>
>         Ashley
>
>         -- 
>         http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
>         http://aviewfromafar.net/
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         rspec-users mailing list
>         rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>         http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rspec-users mailing list
>     rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users



More information about the rspec-users mailing list