On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:54 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> I'd say, let's encourage people to use 'pending' correctly. WDYT?
+1.
--
J. B. (Joe) Rainsberger :: http://www.jbrains.ca ::
http://blog.thecodewhisperer.com
Author, JUnit Recipes
Free Your Mind to Do Great Work :: http://www.freeyourmi
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:08 PM, James Cox wrote:
> Chris,
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Chris Flipse wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:55 PM, James Cox wrote:
>>>
>>> so yes, pending is ok, but a second keyword "broken" might be nicer,
>>> which would act the same but output d
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:06 PM, James Cox wrote:
>> > so yes, pending is ok, but a second keyword "broken" might be nicer,
>> > which would act the same but output different info.
>>
>> You can actually do that!
>>
>> RSpec.configuration do |c|
>> c.alias_example_to :broken, :pending => "Broken
Chris,
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Chris Flipse wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:55 PM, James Cox wrote:
>
>> so yes, pending is ok, but a second keyword "broken" might be nicer,
>> which would act the same but output different info.--
>>
>
> There is a block form of pending. It ac
>
> > so yes, pending is ok, but a second keyword "broken" might be nicer,
> > which would act the same but output different info.
>
> You can actually do that!
>
> RSpec.configuration do |c|
> c.alias_example_to :broken, :pending => "Broken"
> end
>
> See
> http://rubydoc.info/gems/rspec-core/RS
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:55 PM, James Cox wrote:
> Yeah, I love pending too. but it doesn't help me get a sense of the
> state of a suite before I start. now it's part of my practice to go in
> and find out how much is commented out.
>
> David,
>
> three concerns with pending as an option:
>
> a.
I'd suggest adding a coverage ratchet to your build. It's the most
effective (if occasionally annoying) tool when dealing with such
situations. Some assumptions:
* You need a CI server and everyone's using CCMenu/Buildnotify so the
team knows as soon as the build breaks
* You don't have a brittle
AFAIK, there is no framework or tool that can prevent people from doing
stupid things.
I actually only use pending for one thing: in the morning it reminds me
where I was heading the prior evening.
On Jul 24, 2012 1:57 PM, "James Cox" wrote:
> Yeah, I love pending too. but it doesn't help me ge
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:55 PM, James Cox wrote:
> so yes, pending is ok, but a second keyword "broken" might be nicer,
> which would act the same but output different info.--
>
There is a block form of pending. It actually executes the contents of the
block, but outputs as a pending test -- u
Yeah, I love pending too. but it doesn't help me get a sense of the
state of a suite before I start. now it's part of my practice to go in
and find out how much is commented out.
David,
three concerns with pending as an option:
a. it won't help the people who think it's ok to comment out whole
t
I haven't posted in a while, but I want to say that as someone who spends a
significant portion of his time teaching (T/B)DD I am totally in love with
pending specs. There are analogous concepts in nearly every xUnit/xSpec,
but pending is by far the best. Kudos.
On Jul 23, 2012 9:57 PM, "David Che
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:19 AM, James Cox wrote:
> Hey,
>
> in a bunch of the rescues i've recently done, I see a pretty big anti
> pattern: tests don't work, and so rather than making them work, the
> dev team just comments them out till 'later'.
>
> Does anyone think it'd be useful/interesting
I must admit that I'm guilting of commenting out tests. I often do this
when I know that the code works, and I just upgraded some gem, and now one
of my tests no longer passes. I look at the test and realize that the
effort it would take to get the test to work outweighs the value that the
test pro
Hey,
in a bunch of the rescues i've recently done, I see a pretty big anti
pattern: tests don't work, and so rather than making them work, the
dev team just comments them out till 'later'.
Does anyone think it'd be useful/interesting to get a flag for rspec
which would compare lines vs lines-comm
14 matches
Mail list logo
