-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 170
Conversation
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why not documentation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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...
👍 |
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) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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...
@danielsdeleo merging this as-is, if you want rspec-collections, though, i'm fine with that... |
Okay, I'll pull it in if I feel like I need it in the future.
|
No description provided.