Yeah, only RSpec at the moment, I haven't looked into integrating it with any of the others. The way it does its magic is tightly coupled with RSpecs design, specifically the metaclass proxies. Other frameworks may use the same approach, I don't know.
It can't really be integrated with RCov for the reason above, indeed it wouldn't be able to produce any meaningful output if RCov were not used in combination with RSpec. On 26/07/07, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah - I think that's a neat idea too. > > Does the code only work with RSpec's mocking framework? Maybe it > could be integrated into Rcov somehow. > > Scott > > On Jul 25, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Marcus Ahnve wrote: > > > Really cool - I have asked myself that question several times. > > > > /Marcus > > > > On 7/25/07, Ian Leitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hey list, > >> > >> RSpec is great, I've been using it at work for a couple of months > >> now. One > >> gripe I have is that I find it hard to know exactly to what extent > >> my code > >> is covered by the specs. I am aware of RCov and Heckle; they're > >> great, but > >> I'd like to demonstrate another perspective of coverage analysis > >> I've hacked > >> up. > >> > >> The perspective is that of what is mocked and what isn't, with RCov > >> execution analysis mixed in for better viewing. My itch was "To > >> what extent > >> is my code mocked?" -- hence the name MockCov. > >> It produces a report for each file with stubbed methods and > >> executed lines > >> highlighted. From that I can easily see what my specs failed to > >> mock and > >> therefore most probably didn't specify any kind of behavior for. > >> > >> Here is a sample report: > >> http://zioko.com/review_drop.rb.html > >> (please forgive the small size of this sample, my employer > >> understandably > >> didn't want me showing too much of our code) > >> > >> You'll notice that there isn't any kind of statistical coverage > >> summary, I'm > >> not sure how to quantity the results and indeed haven't spent any > >> time > >> thinking about it; that can come later. For now I'd just like to > >> gauge the > >> response to this. > >> > >> I haven't packaged the code up yet, it's a horrible hack and needs > >> to be > >> reworked from scratch; I need to talk with someone on how best to > >> integrate > >> it with RSpec before that happens though. > >> > >> Let me know your thoughts. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Ian > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rspec-users mailing list > >> rspec-users@rubyforge.org > >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > >> > > > > > > -- > > http://marcus.ahnve.net > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
