On 5 Dec 2008, at 07:21, Aslak Hellesøy wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
WDYT? Possible?
Possibly. :)
That does sound like it might be possible. On the other hand, in
practice, I've found that the current implementation works the way
I'd
want it to at least 95% of the time.
Agree. Sounds like a micro optimisation. A little too complex/clever
for my liking.
I'll have to give autospec another shot then I guess. I have given up
on it as it takes over 7 minutes to 'boot up' with our test suite, and
I find it misses too many things it should have run, such that I have
to hit CTRL-C and do a complete (7 minute) re-run far more often than
I'd like. I also don't trust it before a check-in - it seems to miss
things that should have been re-run.
I guess this may more be due to our codebase being a bit badly
organised so that the conventions autospec relies on aren't always
adhered to...
Personally, I'm not terribly
inclined to do all the work to make it more intelligent. But if
you'd
like to give it a shot, I'm certainly curious to see if it can work.
:) My barrier is reading the coverage.data files, although thinking
about it it should be possible to parse the HTML report quite
easily... hmmmm....
Matt Wynne
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://www.songkick.com
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
