On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:55 PM, James Cox <ja...@imaj.es> wrote:
> so yes, pending is ok, but a second keyword "broken" might be nicer,
> which would act the same but output different info.--
>
There is a block form of pending. It actually executes the contents of the
block, but outputs as a pending test -- unless the test passes, in which
case it fails with a differing message:
it "is a broken test that I need to fix sometime" do
pending("broke on nonesuch upgrade") {
domain.do_failing_thing
}
end
So, that shows up in test output just like every other pending note.
Whenever someone gets around to fixing whatever failed, the contents of the
block start passing -- and the test will fail. The failure is a signal to
remove the pending block from around the test.
This may not be as helpful as you like, if it's drowning in a sea of true
"pending" tests ... but I feel that leaving unimplemented, pending tests in
the suite for a long time is a Bad Thing -- precisely because you loose
useful information like this.
:wq
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
