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

Aslak Hellesøy aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com
Thu Dec 4 13:10:07 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.
>

Spot on

> -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
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


More information about the rspec-users mailing list