Phil,<br><br>I wrote that bit o' code (the plugin@spicycode). I haven't actually used the dry-run mode before. I'll dig in and see what I can find about the issue.<br><br>Chad<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">
On 5/22/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Phil O Despotos</b> <<a href="mailto:philodespotos@gmail.com">philodespotos@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
In rspec_on_rails, the spec:doc task uses --dry-run, which doesn't<br>jive well with rspec's ability to write docs for you.<br><br>For example, I use the rspec_expectation_matchers plugin from<br><a href="http://spicycode.com">
spicycode.com</a> (scanned for a name, didn't find one =), and end up<br>writing specs like:<br><br> it { @ticket.should validate_presence_of(:name) }<br><br>Which results in specdocs such as:<br><br> Ticket<br> - NO NAME (Because of --dry-run)
<br> - NO NAME (Because of --dry-run)<br> - NO NAME (Because of --dry-run)<br><br>The examples_specdoc task for rspec itself, however, doesn't use --dry-run.<br><br>Using dry runs presumably speeds things up significantly, but results
<br>in "broken" docs when using one of rspec's handiest features. Should<br>this be considered proper default behavior?<br><br>Replacing the task is easy enough, so there's a good case for dry runs<br>being the default behavior. I'm just curious.
<br><br>Kyle<br>_______________________________________________<br>rspec-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:rspec-users@rubyforge.org">rspec-users@rubyforge.org</a><br><a href="http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users">
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users</a><br></blockquote></div><br>