Write your thoughts about the "useful formatter" best practice.
Great tip, Fuubar is really nice!
Bad practice putting it in your Guardfile instead of .rspec
I recently fell in love with Fivemat
Fivemat is nice, but fuubar is an alternative I would suggest more.
I've used both and after the suite gets large enough, I want to use fuubar. But I like fivemat considerably. The way it shows the filename and the dots correspond to the tests/specs in the file is rather nice.
When I'm writing my tests though, I honestly prefer a documentation-like formatter.
I've moved the rspec configuration into .rspec as suggested by @Spaceghost
Any correction and comment to the updated guideline is appreciated.
I have this string in my spec:
expect(subject.valid?(provider, link)).to be_true
When I have error, in console ouput I see this:
Failure/Error: expect(subject.valid?(provider, link)).to be_true
expected: true value
The main problem is the function arguments. I see the names(provider, link), but don't see the values under that names. None of the formatters(I have tested some) show me values.
Is it possible to get that information from formatter?
I also prefer the documentation formatter. I think it's cool for people new to a project to easily see what the behaviour of each object. That's also why I mostly don't like #2.
@fantgeass You might want to look into the article that @dchelimsky wrote on Explicit use of subject
The Fuubar formatter uses the deprecated formatter interface not supported directly by RSpec 3. (sadpanda)