Our website has detailed upgrade instructions: http://rspec.info/upgrading-from-rspec-2/
Besides upgrading to 2.99 first, the other important thing is using transpec. HTH, Myron On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Cliff Rosson <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Jon. I'll give it a shot. I ran into some semantic issues when > rspec released 3.0 some time ago but in reading the docs nothing really > stands out on why rspec3 wouldn't work for me. > > On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 4:08:09 PM UTC-8, Jon Rowe wrote: >> >> Full backtrace is actually designed to force a full backtrace display, >> turning it off merely uses the default inclusion / exclusion filters, by >> default (if I remember correctly) this includes stuff based on your working >> directory; so if you manually add the directory (even if you use ruby to >> generate it from the file rather than the working directory) to the >> exclusion filter it should be removed no matter where you run the test from. >> >> There’s been a fair amount of work on improving this behaviour in RSpec 3 >> and given that RSpec 2 isn’t supported I heartily recommend you upgrade to >> the latest version, if you install 2.99 first it will be relatively >> painless! >> >> Cheers >> Jon >> >> Jon Rowe >> --------------------------- >> [email protected] >> jonrowe.co.uk >> >> On Friday, 1 January 2016 at 04:52, Cliff Rosson wrote: >> >> Versions. >> >> rspec (2.14.1) >> >> rspec-core (2.14.8) >> >> rspec-expectations (2.14.5) >> >> rspec-mocks (2.14.6) >> >> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 9:52:45 PM UTC-8, Cliff Rosson wrote: >> >> Hi Folk, >> >> Hopefully this is a very simple question. I use RSPEC as a functional >> test for network maintenances. It allows me to loop a series of tests >> during a maintenance providing a clean format and notification of any >> behavioral changes on the network. >> >> Often times I expect some things to fail and in an attempt to keep >> results clean I often want to hide the full backtrace. If I run my rspec >> with the config.full_backtrace argument set to false everything works >> great. If I symlink the file however the backtraces return. >> >> I wrote this example to illustrate my issue. >> >> #!/usr/bin/ruby >> require 'rspec/autorun' >> require 'net/ping' >> >> >> RSpec.configure do |config| >> config.full_backtrace=false >> end >> >> describe "TEST A >> " do >> it "1:Ping is true >> " do >> host = Net::Ping::External.new("www.google.com") >> host.ping?.should be_false >> end >> end >> >> >> if I run this directly it works great. >> >> /test_rspec.rb >> >> F >> >> >> Failures: >> >> >> 1) TEST A >> 1:Ping is true >> >> >> Failure/Error: Unable to find matching line from backtrace >> >> expected: false value >> >> got: true >> >> # ./test_rspec.rb:13:in `block (2 levels) in <main>' >> >> >> Finished in 0.01479 seconds >> >> 1 example, 1 failure >> >> >> Failed examples: >> >> >> rspec ./test_rspec.rb:11 # TEST A >> 1:Ping is true >> >> >> >> Nice and clean output. >> However if I symlink the file I get the full backtrace which I really >> just would rather ignore. >> >> ls -l ~/bin/ >> >> total 24 >> >> lrwxr-xr-x 1 cliff.rosson USERS\Domain Users 49 Dec 30 16:56 >> test_rspec -> /Users/cliff.rosson/Desktop/scratch/test_rspec.rb >> >> >> >> And run the symlink >> >> test_rspec >> >> F >> >> >> Failures: >> >> >> 1) TEST A >> 1:Ping is true >> >> >> Failure/Error: host.ping?.should be_false >> >> expected: false value >> >> got: true >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-expectations-2.14.5/lib/rspec/expectations/fail_with.rb:32:in >> `fail_with' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-expectations-2.14.5/lib/rspec/expectations/handler.rb:36:in >> `handle_matcher' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-expectations-2.14.5/lib/rspec/expectations/syntax.rb:53:in >> `should' >> >> # /Users/cliff.rosson/bin/test_rspec:13:in `block (2 levels) in >> <main>' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/example.rb:114:in >> `instance_eval' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/example.rb:114:in >> `block in run' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/example.rb:254:in >> `with_around_each_hooks' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/example.rb:111:in >> `run' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/example_group.rb:390:in >> `block in run_examples' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/example_group.rb:386:in >> `map' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/example_group.rb:386:in >> `run_examples' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/example_group.rb:371:in >> `run' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/command_line.rb:28:in >> `block (2 levels) in run' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/command_line.rb:28:in >> `map' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/command_line.rb:28:in >> `block in run' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/reporter.rb:58:in >> `report' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/command_line.rb:25:in >> `run' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/runner.rb:80:in >> `run' >> >> # >> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/rspec-core-2.14.8/lib/rspec/core/runner.rb:17:in >> `block in autorun' >> >> >> Finished in 0.01452 seconds >> >> 1 example, 1 failure >> >> >> Failed examples: >> >> >> rspec /Users/cliff.rosson/bin/test_rspec:11 # TEST A >> 1:Ping is true >> >> >> >> Any-thoughts why this setting doesn't carry over when referencing the >> symlink? >> >> Thanks everyone. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "rspec" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/62b49200-336a-4f42-8537-a82d536ecf8b%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/62b49200-336a-4f42-8537-a82d536ecf8b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "rspec" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/4f6e5a17-e808-4f4c-8cfd-f734c9bed45a%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/4f6e5a17-e808-4f4c-8cfd-f734c9bed45a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rspec" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/CADUxQmtnGCr5Kwc25Ss5JCa%3D_K2N-XUKj9afQNQFvPJKikBuEQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
