Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cucumber suite improvements #1049

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

Cucumber suite improvements #1049

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

bruno-
Copy link
Member

@bruno- bruno- commented May 9, 2014

Cucumber suite improvements. Also includes a contribution from #1033.
Some stats:

# master
20 scenarios (3 pending, 17 passed)
103 steps (2 skipped, 3 pending, 98 passed)

# this branch:
20 scenarios (1 pending, 19 passed)
104 steps (1 pending, 103 passed)

I tried to write detailed commit messages example to "preserve the knowledge" about how these scenarios work.

The contributing guidelines say we should squash the commits, but I have refrained from doing so because we would loose some of the info from the commit messages.
Other than that, I think I'm in compliance with the guidelines.

Bruno Sutic added 6 commits May 9, 2014 12:26
Capistrano 'git:check' task executes a `git ls-remote -h #{repo_url}`
command to check if remote repo is accessible. If successful, command
output is a list of references and their SHAs.

Task should be successful and we're pretty sure remote repo will have a
`master` reference, so that's what we're asserting.

We're NOT asserting:
 * repo references other than master - likely to change
 * reference SHAs - will definitely change
'Checking linked files' scenarios were passing, but the steps were not
defined at all.
This commit defines the required steps.
When `deploy:symlink:linked_files` task is executed, only the
release path (containing the timestamp) is created.
After the task is done, it is hard to navigate over that release path
(again, because it's a timestamp) to perform the assertions.

To solve the issue, we're additionally creating a current path because
the assertion is much more easily done via `current_path`.
@Kriechi
Copy link
Contributor

Kriechi commented Nov 17, 2014

@leehambley I think all 6 commits got merged by you manually - so this PR can be closed?

@leehambley
Copy link
Member

Yep, I'm rebasing interactively the master history so that it's still clean. Thanks for the PR. I didn't want to disturb you with asking to rebase/squash/etc.

@mattbrictson
Copy link
Member

Looks like these commits were merged in. Closing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants