One of the things I really liked about TestNG was the grouping
feature. Are there any plans for rSpec to incorporate that? Is there
any way to emulate that functionality in rspec?
Will.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Will S. [email protected]
wrote:
One of the things I really liked about TestNG was the grouping
feature. Are there any plans for rSpec to incorporate that? Is there
any way to emulate that functionality in rspec?
I’m not familiar with the feature you’re talking about. What is it?
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:11 AM, David C. [email protected]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Will S. [email protected] wrote:
One of the things I really liked about TestNG was the grouping
feature. Are there any plans for rSpec to incorporate that? Is there
any way to emulate that functionality in rspec?I’m not familiar with the feature you’re talking about. What is it?
The idea is that you can specify that certain tests exist in groups,
and can be run as a set. You can define groups and groups of groups,
and so you can run a set of functional tests or all the tests dealing
with a specific feature without running through the entire thing.
It’s kinda like an rspec pattern, but more flexible.
Documentation is here:
http://testng.org/doc/documentation-main.html#test-groups
Will.
The idea is that you can specify that certain tests exist in groups,
and can be run as a set. You can define groups and groups of groups,
and so you can run a set of functional tests or all the tests dealing
with a specific feature without running through the entire thing.
It’s kinda like an rspec pattern, but more flexible.
Might not be of help, but my problem was a tad similar when I used
test/spec (rspecish test/unit wrapper).
I had five types of test tasks in my Rakefile: test:units,
test:functionals, test:integration, test:libs and test:helpers. The
integration and lib tests took the most of the time, so I created
custom tasks test:all_but_integration (quite self-explanatory, no?)
and test:webserver, which ran everything else except test:libs. The
way I did it was that test:all_but_integration just
depended on the tasks test:units, tests:functionals etc.
So, if you want grouping inside features in a single test suite, this
won’t help, but for me, being able to control which (whole) files were
run with Rake was sufficient for me. The whole suite took something
like 15 minutes, but we had thousands of tests and when we started, we
didn’t use that much mock objects.
That said, I have never needed nor wished the ability to combine test
suites using test/spec or rspec. Being able to choose which
contexts/describes or individual specs will be run has been more than
sufficient to me, but of course, YNMDFTOM.
–
“One day, when he was naughty, Mr Bunnsy looked over the hedge into
Farmer Fred’s field and it was full of fresh green lettuces. Mr
Bunnsy, however, was not full of lettuces. This did not seem fair.”
– Terry Pratchett, Mr. Bunnsy Has An Adventure
James D. wrote:
Using the -e option from the command line, you can also specify a
string which is to be run, this is a way to run only one describe
block, or one it block. The rake task method suggested by Edvard is
the other option
I’m having problems with the -e option - it doesn’t recognise the string
and so runs no tests. I have several nested describe blocks, and i want
to run one of the top-level ones:
describe “add_descendants_from_xml” do
before do
…
…
end
I’m trying to run just this block like so:
ruby script/spec spec/models/property_spec.rb --format specdoc -c -e
“add_descendants_from_xml”
(the linebreak after -e isn’t in my command, it’s just split to fit this
text field)
And it runs 0 tests. Can anyone tell me what i’m doing wrong?
thanks
max
Using the -e option from the command line, you can also specify a
string which is to be run, this is a way to run only one describe
block, or one it block. The rake task method suggested by Edvard is
the other option
On Mar 10, 2008, at 5:42 AM, Edvard M. wrote:
integration and lib tests took the most of the time, so I created
rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
James D.
http://devillecompanies.org
[email protected]
rspec r3172
rspec_on_rails r3172
rails r8331
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Ashley M.
[email protected] wrote:
sufficient to me, but of course, YNMDFTOM.
Please put me out of my misery and explain the acronym
My bad. My favorite hobby is to invent new acronyms on the fly, of
which the one concerned is an example.
It is short for “Your Needs May Differ From Those Of Mine” 
–
“One day, when he was naughty, Mr Bunnsy looked over the hedge into
Farmer Fred’s field and it was full of fresh green lettuces. Mr
Bunnsy, however, was not full of lettuces. This did not seem fair.”
– Terry Pratchett, Mr. Bunnsy Has An Adventure
Edvard M. wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Ashley M.
[email protected] wrote:sufficient to me, but of course, YNMDFTOM.
Please put me out of my misery and explain the acronym
My bad. My favorite hobby is to invent new acronyms on the fly, of
which the one concerned is an example.
It is short for “Your Needs May Differ From Those Of Mine”–
“One day, when he was naughty, Mr Bunnsy looked over the hedge into
Farmer Fred’s field and it was full of fresh green lettuces. Mr
Bunnsy, however, was not full of lettuces. This did not seem fair.”
– Terry Pratchett, Mr. Bunnsy Has An Adventure
Sorry to be pedantic, but shouldn’t that be
“Your needs may differ from mine”? There’s no party called ‘mine’, so
‘mine’ has no needs
Anyway, does anyone have any idea why
-e “the name of a describe block”
results in 0 tests being run for me?
On 20 Mar 2008, at 14:31, Max W. wrote:
Sorry to be pedantic, but shouldn’t that be
“Your needs may differ from mine”? There’s no party called ‘mine’, so
‘mine’ has no needs
A quick google for “those of mine” brings back a google book hit for
Shakespeare so maybe Edvard was being poetic 
Anyway, does anyone have any idea why
-e “the name of a describe block”results in 0 tests being run for me?
Are you sure you are running the outer-most group, and not an inner
group or example? I just tried this file as test.spec.rb:
describe “add_descendants_from_xml” do
it “should add descendants” do
true.should be_false
end
describe "with attributes" do
it "should add attributes too" do
false.should be_true
end
end
end
- the outer group name works
~/Desktop % spec -e “add_descendants_from_xml” test.spec.rb
F
1)
‘add_descendants_from_xml should add descendants’ FAILED
expected false, got true
./test.spec.rb:3:
Finished in 0.007168 seconds
- testing the name of the inner group fails
~/Desktop % spec -e “with attributes” test.spec.rb
Finished in 0.001734 seconds
0 examples, 0 failures
- but, as expected
~/Desktop % spec -e “add_descendants_from_xml with attributes”
test.spec.rb
F
1)
‘add_descendants_from_xml with attributes should add attributes too’
FAILED
expected true, got false
./test.spec.rb:8:
Finished in 0.007056 seconds
Failing that, are you sure you haven’t got a typo? I can’t see a
problem with the -e option.
Ashley
On 10 Mar 2008, at 12:42, Edvard M. wrote:
Being able to choose which
contexts/describes or individual specs will be run has been more than
sufficient to me, but of course, YNMDFTOM.
Hi Edvard
Sorry for the delayed reaction, but was just catching up on old posts
and saw this. I googled for “YNMDFTOM” and apparently this mailing
list contains the only use of it in the known universe.
Please put me out of my misery and explain the acronym
Ashley
Are you sure you are running the outer-most group, and not an inner
group or example? I just tried this file as test.spec.rb:
describe “add_descendants_from_xml” do
it “should add descendants” do
true.should be_false
enddescribe "with attributes" do it "should add attributes too" do false.should be_true end endend
- the outer group name works
Ah - that’ll be the problem then: i was trying to run an inner group. I
tend to wrap all the tests in a single file up in a single block, and
then lots of nested blocks inside.
thanks
max