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

Finally randomize feature & scenario ordering #204

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Jun 4, 2018

Conversation

yarmiganosca
Copy link
Contributor

So, yeah, it's been a over a year since a said I'd get to this "next week". My bad. Anyway, I'm finally delivering #196. Here's an overview of the design. Both the feature and scenario runners will have the same Orderer instance attached to them, which decides the order the features or scenarios are executed in. The only 2 currently available Orderers are Default and Random. --seed SEED allows you to specify the seed provided to the Random orderer, and --rand activates the Random orderer with a random seed.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jun 4, 2018

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+2.6%) to 93.679% when pulling 829b871 on yarmiganosca:introduce-orderers into df5b27e on codegram:master.

I could narrow it down to the exact versions of which librariess and
figure out exactly why that combination made the failure
happen. However, I can't find a compelling reason why this test
shouldn't pass in step_definitions like the others in this file, and
that change makes the test pass with the library version combos where
it previously failed, and doesn't affect it elsewhere. So, we're going
with that.
@oriolgual
Copy link
Member

Thanks @yarmiganosca, this looks really nice!

@oriolgual oriolgual merged commit 09ba608 into codegram:master Jun 4, 2018
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.

None yet

3 participants