On Nov 21, 2007 3:42 PM, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2007, at 3:17 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote: > > > On 11/21/07, Chad Humphries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> One of the recent trunk changesets modified the default behaviour to > >> fail fast if duplicate examples are detected within a single > >> behaviour/ > >> example group. This is basically letting you know you have to "it" > >> blocks in the behaviour with the same description. > >> > > > > This is correct. It's not a bug - it's by design and documented in > > CHANGES. > > > > The reason I put it in has an interesting explanation. Over the past > > few days our coverage dropped from 100% to 99.9% and we couldn't > > understand why. RCov reported that some code wasn't being covered, but > > I *knew* there were examples covering it. > > > > Something was fishy. > > > > Then I remembered that Brian a few days ago did a change to the > > internals - every it block now creates a method with the same name as > > the description, and later calls that method to run the example. > > Nothing wrong with that, but it had some sideeffects we didn't think > > about: If there were duplicates, the last one would simply overwrite > > (monkey patch!) the previous one with the same name. And as a result > > never get run. > > > > Since I'm a fail fast kind of guy I made RSpec do that. > > Yep, me too. > > > > > And then I had to go and fix a dozen or so duplicates in our own code. > > Damn CMD-C/CMD-V keys. > > > > I realise the error message you're getting now isn't exactly easy to > > grok, but as always - we're glad to take patches to make it speak > > nicer to you. > > Actually the error was rather clear - I just wasn't expecting it to > happen over night (literally). But then again, that's running on > trunk for you! (I'll make sure to check the CHANGELOG nextime). > > On the same topic - has the following been deprecated? > > it do > .. > end
No it hasn't, and that presents an interesting dilemma. Need to give that some thought. > > ? Wouldn't double example names creed up pretty quickly with this > sort of syntax? We'd have to keep track and rename them. Not pretty. > > > > This actually helped me clear out a few duplicate examples that I had > going on. > > Thanks for the info, > > > Scott > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
