As a note of feedback, when I do a spec --help, I saw this line…
-e, --example [NAME|FILE_NAME] Execute example(s) with matching
name(s). If the argument is
the path to an existing file
(typically generated by a previous
run using --format
failing_examples:file.txt), then the examples
on each line of that file will be
executed. If the file is empty,
all examples will be run (as if –
example was not specified).
so I, trying to be clever, passed it something to match:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:54 PM, rogerdpack [email protected]
wrote:
all examples will be run (as if --
Thoughts?
Actually, I’m thinking of not supporting this in rspec-2. I personally
find the line number much more useful, since you can just copy it
directly from the failure messages to re-run something:
Finished in 0.125 seconds
Finished in 0.34375 seconds
change the matching to be regex matching (this one is what I would
personally prefer–then you don’t have to put full test names on the
command line).
Thoughts?
Actually, I’m thinking of not supporting this in rspec-2. I personally
find the line number much more useful, since you can just copy it
directly from the failure messages to re-run something:
spec path/to/spec.rb:37
This is great except when you use macros or other tricks to generate
examples - then there isn’t a 1:1: mapping from line number to
example. I often find it quite annoying to have to quote the whole
example description, so I actually quite like Roger’s idea about using
regexp matching.
E:\dev\ruby\spork>spec spec/spork/run_strategy/single* -e"returns the
rephrase the help as "runs the test whose name equals the one
find the line number much more useful, since you can just copy it
machinery is already in place for this in rspec2’s new runner. Just
need to hook it to the command line. But right now, in
rspec-core-2.0.0.a2, you can say this in any Ruby that gets loaded
(like spec_helper.rb):
Rspec::Core.configure do |c|
c.filter_run :description => /should match this string/
end
Hooking that from the CLI will be pretty simple, so coming soon.
E:\dev\ruby\spork>spec spec/spork/run_strategy/single* -e"the result"
result of the run_tests method from the forked child"
specified" (instead of using the word “matches” which to me somehow
directly from the failure messages to re-run something:
spec path/to/spec.rb:37
This is great except when you use macros or other tricks to generate
examples - then there isn’t a 1:1: mapping from line number to example. I
often find it quite annoying to have to quote the whole example description,
so I actually quite like Roger’s idea about using regexp matching.
Excellent news for you both. It turns out that the underlying
machinery is already in place for this in rspec2’s new runner. Just
need to hook it to the command line. But right now, in
rspec-core-2.0.0.a2, you can say this in any Ruby that gets loaded
(like spec_helper.rb):
Rspec::Core.configure do |c|
c.filter_run :description => /should match this string/
end
Hooking that from the CLI will be pretty simple, so coming soon.
Does that match the describe groups as well? I would like to be able to
run all of the examples in either “first group” or “second group”. Will
it match?
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Phillip K. [email protected] wrote:
Cool stuff!
Does that match the describe groups as well? I would like to be able to run
all of the examples in either “first group” or “second group”. Will it
match?
Also, does anyone but me find the expectation in the case where
there’s no match surprising?
Does that match the describe groups as well? I would like to be able to run
all of the examples in either “first group” or “second group”. Will it
match?
Also, does anyone but me find the expectation in the case where
there’s no match surprising?
I thought about that, as well. I would expect nothing to be done if no
match was found. Consider the case of misspelling the example or group
and having the whole shebang run instead of nothing.
I don’t want to sound all gushy or anything, but you have got to be one
of the most helpful, courteous, knowledgable people I have encountered
in all my days on the internet.
Thanks for all that you do for all the communities you participate in.
I don’t want to sound all gushy or anything, but you have got to be
one of the most helpful, courteous, knowledgable people I have
encountered in all my days on the internet.
I don’t want to sound all gushy or anything, but you have got to be one of
the most helpful, courteous, knowledgable people I have encountered in all
my days on the internet.