# Rspec-cleverbacktrace 0.1 Released **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [January 9, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rspec-cleverbacktrace-0-1-released/181301 "2010-01-09T04:10:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Judson\_L](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/e56c9b/32.png) [@Judson\_L](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Judson_L)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rspec-cleverbacktrace-0-1-released/181301/1 "2010-01-09T04:10:24Z")
rspec-cleverbacktrace version 0.1 has been released! The default backtrace handling for rspec is … okay. It would be nice if you could find the source of exceptions during test runs without having to see _all_ the backtraces, right? That’s what this thing is for: it compacts backtraces, skims out things that should be ignored (and respects ignore\_patterns), then trims filenames and contracts repetition into a legible format. Project: [http://rubyforge.org/project/cleverbacktrace/](http://rubyforge.org/project/cleverbacktrace/) Homepage: [http://cleverbacktrace.rubyforge.org/](http://cleverbacktrace.rubyforge.org/) ---
**Author:** ![Judson\_L](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/e56c9b/32.png) [@Judson\_L](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Judson_L)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rspec-cleverbacktrace-0-1-released/181301/2 "2010-01-09T14:02:18Z")
> Project: [http://rubyforge.org/project/cleverbacktrace/](http://rubyforge.org/project/cleverbacktrace/) link works? > Homepage: [http://cleverbacktrace.rubyforge.org/](http://cleverbacktrace.rubyforge.org/) ex: 1) RuntimeError in ‘This spec has to dig deep to find a problem’ 1 lib/right\_hand.rb:5:in `wash_left_hand' 2 lib/left_hand.rb:4:in `know\_what\_right\_hand\_is\_doing’ \> 11112111121111 3 spec/test\_spec.rb:5: I’ve been thinking rspec should add something similar, before. My original thought was just to show the actual code at the line that raises–something like that might be kind here, too. Though I suppose we could continue the conversation on the rspec list. -r