> Ahh, good to know. Does that mean that the HTML isn't outputted until > all of the scenario's are ran for a particular story?
Exactly. It made the html much nicer but did loose that per scenario output. I added a progress bar formatter so I could still get that direct scenario feedback, be it just a green dot or red F :) David are you happy with this html and dev-html formatter direction? If so I'll move this issue to lighthouse and start adding my patch. Ben Mabey wrote: > Joseph Wilk wrote: >>> Which brings up the other question.. how do we want to handle the JS? >>> Due to how the HTML is written out JS is required to change the Story's >>> and Scenario's styles when a step fails or is pending. I did this with >>> lowpro for the rspec-story-tmbundle: >>> >> >> The current html formatter in trunk no longer requires js to apply >> styles for failure or pending. >> > > Ahh, good to know. Does that mean that the HTML isn't outputted until > all of the scenario's are ran for a particular story? >> So that moves us along to looking at js to hide/show the backtrace. >> >> The idea of showing the backtrace in the html has been something I've >> been debating for a while. I did come to conclusion that as a developer >> I have the build log (or terminal stories are run from) as a source for >> story errors. Hence I felt I was best left leaving my stories clean for >> the non-developer users of the stories. >> > > This is true for regular development, although having the backtrace can > also be helpful in the HTML version if you use that as your main > formatter (i.e. in textmate.) > The real use for the backtrace, IMO, is for providing a decent build > artifact for CI. Otherwise you could have to look through your test.log > file and try to match it up.. which would be no fun. >> >> AND >> advanced/verbose output (profiling each story aswell perhaps?). >> Potentially Aslak's new interface could move to this dev-formatter(or >> some other formatter) so that we continue development without disturbing >> those using the simple default output. >> >> What do people think? >> > > I really like that idea, and I agree with you that these two would cover > most use cases. > > -Ben -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
