On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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.
Sorry for the long silence on this - just got back from my first "computer-free" vacation in some years. I recommend it to everyone (though some may wish to prepare themselves for assorted withdrawal symptoms). Anyhow - I'm not convinced one way or the other as to whether two formatters for different audiences is better than a single html formatter w/ some simple js to reveal backtraces. I can tell you from my experience with FitNesse that the backtraces were sometimes life-saving and sometimes simply annoying. Having the option to show it but have it hidden on load would be nice. Anybody else wanna chime in on this? > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
