On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:47 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. It certainly can take a while to boot up, but that's necessary: it really has to run the whole suite the first time to be sure everything is passing. It might be nice to have an option to skip that if you're sure everything passes when you start. You shouldn't be using Ctrl-C to restart autospec very often; at least, I almost never do. I find that the work I'm doing very rarely regresses other scenarios, and it's not a problem not to notice until the current features are finished and the whole suite runs. Typically, in my workflow, I have a branch which adds a new feature or scenario. I commit filling out a scenario and the step definitions to make them no longer pending in one commit. Then I commit spec examples and the come which makes them pass in logical chunks until the scenario passes. Once it passes, the whole suite runs again automatically, and I see if I've broken anything. If I have, I fix it then. When I get the "all green", I can fill out a new scenario and start the cycle again. I think of these as "micro-iterations", since I reevaluate the direction I'm going in between these iterations. A bunch of these micro-iterations together form an "iteration" in he Agile/XP sense, where I've built something I can show to the client/customer/boss again for feedback. At this point I can merge my branch into master or another longer-running branch. Because of this workflow, I'm ok with committing code with broken features, and even broken specs if they're not related to what I've been doing. At the end of a micro-iteration, though, everything needs to pass. > 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... Yeah, that can be a killer. If you have your own conventions, though (and you should), you can modify the mappings in your .autotest file to match. See the Autotest#add_mapping rdoc for more info. Peter _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
