Hi Jonathan. The pending method uses an exception to fail fast out of the step, but the runner knows it's a special case so it treats it accordingly. That's why pending steps or scenarios are reported differently from failures in the runner. It would be easy to reimplement pending using Ruby's throw/catch mechanism which is separate from the exception mechanism, I just didn't think to do it at the time. (Plus, the rspec example runner uses exceptions too so it makes sense for the story runner to do the same.)
As for the first pending (or failing) step terminating the scenario, this is a tricky one. You don't want the scenario to carry on executing because something has already gone wrong (either by failing or simply by not being implemented yet), but there are listeners that want to know what other steps would have run, for documentation for example. I am thinking of something like this: once a step fails, iterate over the remaining steps in the scenario, passing them into the found_step method on any documenters, but not actually executing the steps. This would strike a balance between actually executing the steps - which wouldn't make sense - and simply ignoring them, which makes the documentation look weird. Maybe they could be coloured differently in the (as-yet-unwritten) html story documenter, so you would have a bunch of green steps, one red or yellow step (the failing or pending one), and the remaining unexecuted ones in grey. On 10/1/07, Jonathan Linowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you add the pending statement before other non-pending ones, it > stops at the first pending one. That forces me to implement them in > the order specified, a rough example: > > Then "user was authorized to perform this action" > > And "action was completed correctly" do > ... > end > > > > On Sep 14, 2007, at 7:10 PM, Pat Maddox wrote: > > > On 9/14/07, Evan David Light <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> I've been using RSpec in anger for perhaps a total of a few days > >> and just > >> started playing with Story Runner. Love it. > >> > >> I also started working on a patch, which ought to be simple, to > >> allow for > >> Scenarios without supplied blocks to be treated as pending -- much > >> like "it" > >> in Spec::DSL::ExampleAPI. > >> > >> That said, I noticed something that seemed odd and chatted with Rein > >> Henrichs a little about it on #rspec. ScenarioRunner#run treats > >> "pending" > >> scenarios as an error case. We both believed this to be a little > >> odd as we > >> both thought that pending would just be a branch and not an > >> error. That > >> said, I thought that there may be a reasonable explanation. > >> > >> Evan Light > >> IMs (all): sleight42 > >> Twitter: elight > >> http://evan.tiggerpalace.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rspec-users mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > >> > > > > Hrm...I added > > > > And "this should be pending" do > > pending "need something else" > > end > > > > to the end of one of my stories and got: > > > > And this should be pending > > P > > 4 scenarios: 3 succeeded, 0 failed, 1 pending > > > > I agree that it would be nice if story runner treats an empty > > Given/When/Then as pending. But what do you mean it treats pending as > > an error case? > > > > Pat > > _______________________________________________ > > rspec-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
