Skip to content

Conversation

JakeGinnivan
Copy link
Member

This is a step towards simplifying reporting. It introduces a new interface ITestResultProcessor which defaults to the ConventionReportTextRenderer but can be overridden when calling Convention.Is.

There can only be a single ITestResultProcessor per test, and this result processor is used by the IResultsProcessor to format the result of the test, for example when I tell Convention Tests to use the CsvReporter, then the Approval processor will be approving the output from the csv reporter.

This also introduces a markdown reporter (which is not wired in anywhere yet, but was thinking about supporting [assembly: ConventionReporter(typeof(MarkdownReporter))] sort of syntax which would allow users to easily configure additional reporters. Then the html reporter would not be hard coded, it could simply be used if the user wants it to be.

Finally, this improves the html reporter. I started going down the road of reporting the types which conformed to the convention, but then am unsure because this could be going back to the pass/fail support in reporters. I just stopped but left the changes I had made in here to get feedback.

I am pretty happy with these changes, except the last one, I think they are good if we changed reporters to also report failures (like bddfy). Anyways, happy to hear your thoughts. It does show off more complex formatting of data which is nice, but not really sure of the use case for doing this now =\

@JakeGinnivan
Copy link
Member Author

@kkozmic over to you :)

@JakeGinnivan
Copy link
Member Author

About to push some more changes. Had a think about reporting. Now have this:

image

It reports the data which fails, but doesn't care if this is approved or not, it simply reports it. This also shows off how we can have richer reporting for different markup types

@JakeGinnivan
Copy link
Member Author

@kkozmic
Copy link
Contributor

kkozmic commented Sep 2, 2013

Overall there's a bunch of things that I like here, and some stuff that I think needs some more thinking.

@JakeGinnivan
Copy link
Member Author

poke @kkozmic

@JakeGinnivan
Copy link
Member Author

I'm merging this, feel free to counter PR with more changes :)

JakeGinnivan added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 11, 2013
@JakeGinnivan JakeGinnivan merged commit 45917c2 into TestStack:master Sep 11, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants