[rspec-users] Spec run heuristics (Re: Cucover: coverage-aware 'lazy' cucumber runs)

Stephen Eley sfeley at gmail.com
Sun Apr 12 23:25:51 EDT 2009

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Steve Molitor <stevemolitor at gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding the exception nagger,  would a simple script that grepped the log
> file for exceptions and produced a list of failing lines in your code be a
> start?

Hi Steve,

I think so.  If it said which class-or-module and method they were
defined in (almost always determinable by backwards regexing) even
better.  Then a dimwit like me could just glance at it and say "Oh,
duh!  I forgot to spec Planet.destroy!"

Also I must confess: after I sent that last e-mail, it occurred to me
why a past-exception-based coverage tool wouldn't work very well in
the long term.  It'd be fine for immediate use, but if you didn't do
the specs right away, the code would evolve and the line numbers of
those old exceptions would slowly go out of sync with current reality.
 Since the only reasonable answer to that is "When something breaks,
write a test for it _immediately_ to catch it next time" I'd say the
simpler script you're talking about is probably close to ideal.

Have Fun,
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine

More information about the rspec-users mailing list