We have, er, “citations” for protecting against bad exceptions, in general we don’t protect against people not obeying Ruby semantics, but as exceptions are a core part of what we do, we protect against bad messages and causes, so I don’t see why we wouldn’t protect against bad stack traces either.
Cheers Jon ---------------- m...@jonrowe.co.uk https://jonrowe.co.uk On 9 September 2020 at 20:44, Jack Royal-Gordon wrote: > Hi Jon, > > It turns out that the real underlying reason for the failure was that I was > generating an exception with no backtrace (backtrace = nil). Does that seem > to you like something you would want RSpec to handle more gracefully, or is > that one of those “if you make the program fool-proof then they’ll create a > better fool” type of errors? -- 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 rspec+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/dejalu-217-43f02f93-a240-4540-aa12-10cedd67774c%40jonrowe.co.uk.
