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

Nested suite name #65

Closed
flore77 opened this Issue Jun 19, 2016 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@flore77
Contributor

flore77 commented Jun 19, 2016

Currently only tests have as suiteName a concatenated name of the nested suites.

Example:

describe('outer suite', function() {
  describe('inner suite', function() {
    it('test', function() {});
  });
});

emitted outer suite object:

{
  name: outer suite,
  ...
}

emitted inner suite object:

{
  name: inner suite
  ...
}

emitted test object:

{
  testName: test,
  suiteName: outer suite inner suite
  ...
}
@jzaefferer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jzaefferer

jzaefferer Jun 19, 2016

Contributor

Its somewhat inconsistent, but not unreasonable. What do you suggest to do here?

Contributor

jzaefferer commented Jun 19, 2016

Its somewhat inconsistent, but not unreasonable. What do you suggest to do here?

@flore77

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@flore77

flore77 Jun 20, 2016

Contributor

Yeah, it is a bit inconsistent.

I'm not sure I think we can add another property to represent the concatenated name, like:

// emitted outer suite object
{
name: outer suite,
fullName: outer suite,
...
}  

// emitted inner suite object
{
name: inner suite
fullName: outter suite > inner suite
...
}

// emitted test object
{
testName: test,
suiteName: inner suite
fullname: outer suite > inner suite > test
...
}

The fullname prop can be the concatenated name, and we should use a character to separate it, > or # or something.

Or it can be an array of names, like:

{
...
fullName: [outer suite, inner suite, test]
...
}
Contributor

flore77 commented Jun 20, 2016

Yeah, it is a bit inconsistent.

I'm not sure I think we can add another property to represent the concatenated name, like:

// emitted outer suite object
{
name: outer suite,
fullName: outer suite,
...
}  

// emitted inner suite object
{
name: inner suite
fullName: outter suite > inner suite
...
}

// emitted test object
{
testName: test,
suiteName: inner suite
fullname: outer suite > inner suite > test
...
}

The fullname prop can be the concatenated name, and we should use a character to separate it, > or # or something.

Or it can be an array of names, like:

{
...
fullName: [outer suite, inner suite, test]
...
}
@flore77

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@flore77

flore77 Jun 20, 2016

Contributor

I think it may be useful, because I have seen that also Karma is building a concatenated name. I don't now yet at what is using it, but if it creates it, it must be used at something.

Contributor

flore77 commented Jun 20, 2016

I think it may be useful, because I have seen that also Karma is building a concatenated name. I don't now yet at what is using it, but if it creates it, it must be used at something.

@flore77

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@flore77

flore77 Jul 13, 2016

Contributor

@jzaefferer we should also continue this one.

Contributor

flore77 commented Jul 13, 2016

@jzaefferer we should also continue this one.

@jzaefferer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jzaefferer

jzaefferer Jul 13, 2016

Contributor

Sure, but I'd like to finish the browserstack-runner PR, so that they can review it.

Contributor

jzaefferer commented Jul 13, 2016

Sure, but I'd like to finish the browserstack-runner PR, so that they can review it.

@flore77

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@flore77

flore77 Jul 18, 2016

Contributor

@jzaefferer can I go for this ? I think also browserstack would benefit from this.

Contributor

flore77 commented Jul 18, 2016

@jzaefferer can I go for this ? I think also browserstack would benefit from this.

@jzaefferer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jzaefferer

jzaefferer Jul 18, 2016

Contributor

Would you replace https://github.com/browserstack/browserstack-runner/pull/159/files#diff-885d5623bc9f0fada7aa1bcdcdde5574R30 with testName: test.fullName.join(" ")?

Alternative property name: canonicalName?

Contributor

jzaefferer commented Jul 18, 2016

Would you replace https://github.com/browserstack/browserstack-runner/pull/159/files#diff-885d5623bc9f0fada7aa1bcdcdde5574R30 with testName: test.fullName.join(" ")?

Alternative property name: canonicalName?

@flore77

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@flore77

flore77 Jul 18, 2016

Contributor

Would you replace https://github.com/browserstack/browserstack-runner/pull/159/files#diff-885d5623bc9f0fada7aa1bcdcdde5574R30 with testName: test.fullName.join(" ")?

EDIT: Yes! So do we make the fullName property an array ?

Alternative property name: canonicalName?

Sure. But why this name ?

Contributor

flore77 commented Jul 18, 2016

Would you replace https://github.com/browserstack/browserstack-runner/pull/159/files#diff-885d5623bc9f0fada7aa1bcdcdde5574R30 with testName: test.fullName.join(" ")?

EDIT: Yes! So do we make the fullName property an array ?

Alternative property name: canonicalName?

Sure. But why this name ?

@flore77 flore77 referenced this issue Jul 19, 2016

Merged

Full name prop #77

@jzaefferer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jzaefferer

jzaefferer Jul 19, 2016

Contributor

Let's go with fullName as array.

Contributor

jzaefferer commented Jul 19, 2016

Let's go with fullName as array.

@flore77 flore77 closed this in #77 Jul 20, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment