On Aug 29, 2010, at 1:30 AM, Myron Marston wrote: >> I think "separate from the spec run" mislead you as to my intention here. >> What I mean is that I don't want this to raise errors, but rather it >> would be part of the output, just like pending and failed examples. > > I'm OK with this idea. I just didn't want to have a separate file to > read :). > >> I was resistant to the idea when it was simpler, but this additional >> complexity makes me even moreso :) > > Fair enough. > >> Without getting into a debate about its relative merits, here's what >> I'd really like to see: an API in the rspec-mocks framework that would >> allow you to extend it to do all this in a separate gem. Then you >> could build this, release it, refine it, etc. >> >> What do you think would be necessary in rspec-mocks to support that? > > I appreciate your willingness to make changes to RSpec to support 3rd > party libraries...but I honestly think that the necessary changes to > rspec-mocks for the API plus the separate gem would be far more work > than just implementing a simple version of this (as you've suggested) > in rspec mocks itself. Plus I doubt that a separate gem that did this > one simple thing would get much use by other developers. > > Now that I understand that you just meant to have this print out a > report as part of the main spec output, I'm completely satisfied with > your suggestion. I'll start working on something in a branch and I'll > see what I can come up with.
Cool. Thanks. Cheers, David _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
