Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 14, 2021. It is now read-only.

Lcg/rspec 3 #99

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 11, 2014
Merged

Lcg/rspec 3 #99

merged 3 commits into from
Jul 11, 2014

Conversation

lamont-granquist
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

fails to compile the debugger gem at all.  pry-byebug and the
byebug gem are the replacements if we really need this...
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
--color
-fs
-f progress
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why not documentation?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure of Lamont's reasoning, but -fd is really hard to decipher failure, especially on CI.

Although, I'm generally in favor of ignoring the .rspec file and specifying the flags to the actual CI command. This is usually a developer preference thing, so why not just .gitignore it?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd rather stick with doc. I haven't had any trouble figuring out a failure in Ci because of the extra output, and I think it encourages better test structure and test example names when you read the combined contextual strings together.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't care too much either way, I've been defaulting to progress recently.

On travis we can always override it to progress if it gets to be too excessive, so I don't think it matters that much either way what goes here...

@sersut
Copy link

sersut commented Jul 10, 2014

👍

@adamedx
Copy link

adamedx commented Jul 10, 2014

Looks good.

@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ def stdout
end

it "includes the generator in the list" do
expect(generator_class).to have(1).generators
expect(generator_class.generators.size).to eq(1)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Alternatively we could bring in the rspec-collections gem. I kinda like the fancy syntax but it's maybe a bit over-magical so I'm not inclined to argue for it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah I kind of assumed they might have done that for a reason like pulling out 'its' because its not really a good idea, but didn't quite have the motivation to google up the bikeshed...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, google doesn't turn up much other than criticism of them being "magical" and "poorly understood" but it seems easy enough for me to understand... I'm agnostic...

lamont-granquist added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2014
@lamont-granquist lamont-granquist merged commit 3841539 into master Jul 11, 2014
@lamont-granquist lamont-granquist deleted the lcg/rspec-3 branch July 11, 2014 04:52
@lamont-granquist
Copy link
Contributor Author

@danielsdeleo merging this as-is, if you want rspec-collections, though, i'm fine with that...

@danielsdeleo
Copy link
Contributor

Okay, I'll pull it in if I feel like I need it in the future.

On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:53 PM, lamont-granquist notifications@github.com wrote:

@danielsdeleo merging this as-is, if you want rspec-collections, though, i'm fine with that...


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@chef-boneyard chef-boneyard locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 14, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants