In lib/buildr/scala/tests.rb lines 112, 113:
ant.includes group_includes.join(" ") if group_includes
ant.excludes group_excludes.join(" ") if group_excludesThe arguments should be name/value pairs, a string argument doesn't do much good. Commenting out these two lines doesn't break tests_spec.rb. Assaf On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Daniel Spiewak <djspie...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Turns out that I just hadn't updated the specs to add the $ back into the >> expected lists. Specifications are defined as singleton objects, which >> means that the test class which is running is actually '<specName>$'. I >> used to trim off that trailing $, but that isn't really an option with the >> new spec runner. Ideas welcome here. >> >> Incidentally, the new spec runner does provide some very important >> benefits >> -- like being able to detect and run *any* bona fide specification object, >> not just the ones which lack companion classes. Also, this spec runner >> makes it possible in future to run specifications defined as classes >> (rather >> than objects), something which is supported by Specs but not Buildr. So, >> the solution isn't to just drop the new runner; I just have to figure out >> a >> way to make this work without exposing all those ugly $ characters to the >> end-user. >> >> In the meantime, I've fixed the specs and committed the results. >> > > Awsome. I'm working on getting all the specs to pass with Ruby 1.9, one set > at a time, so I need specs to first pass with 1.8. > > Assaf > > >> >> Daniel >> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Daniel Spiewak <djspie...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Those tests were passing for me yesterday, before the Rspec upgrade. >> Well, >> > *some* of them were passing. Most were throwing errors about a helper >> > method. I'll take a look at it tomorrow to see if I can reproduce the >> > failures. >> > >> > Daniel >> > >> > >> > On Jun 16, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisv...@intalio.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Daniel, >> >> >> >> Assaf and I noticed some failures in spec/scala/bdd_spec.rb today. Do >> the >> >> following specs fail for you? >> >> >> >> 1) >> >> 'Buildr::Scala::Specs should include public classes extending >> >> org.specs.Specification' FAILED >> >> expected ["com.example.MySpecs$"] to include "com.example.MySpecs" >> >> ./spec/scala/bdd_spec.rb:68: >> >> >> >> 2) >> >> 'Buildr::Scala::Specs should include public classes extending >> >> org.specs.Specification even with companion classes' FAILED >> >> expected ["com.example.MySpecs$"] to include "com.example.MySpecs" >> >> ./spec/scala/bdd_spec.rb:85: >> >> >> >> 3) >> >> 'Buildr::Scala::Specs should report failed test names' FAILED >> >> expected ["FailingSpecs$"] to include "FailingSpecs" >> >> ./spec/scala/bdd_spec.rb:128: >> >> >> >> 4) >> >> 'Buildr::Scala::Specs should compile and run specifications with >> "Specs" >> >> suffix' FAILED >> >> expected ["HelloWorldSpecs$"] to include "HelloWorldSpecs" >> >> ./spec/scala/bdd_spec.rb:146: >> >> >> >> 5) >> >> 'Buildr::Scala::Specs should fail if specifications fail' FAILED >> >> expected ["StringSpecs$"] to include "StringSpecs" >> >> ./spec/scala/bdd_spec.rb:165: >> >> >> >> Finished in 14.103377 seconds >> >> >> >> 11 examples, 5 failures >> >> >> >> alex >> >> >> > >> > >
