Add #fits and #xits methods #79

bazay · 2020-11-20T16:49:37Z

RSpec core library has a convention of prepending 'f' and 'x' to it's methods to support running certain blocks or tests with :focus or :skip tags. This commit aims to bring rspec-its inline with this convention by making #fits and #xits methods available to the spec writer.

spec/rspec/its_spec.rb

bazay · 2020-11-23T18:45:57Z

I'm also happy to update README with both methods with the commit resolving this discussion:
#79 (comment)

lib/rspec/its/version.rb

JonRowe · 2020-11-24T08:53:50Z

Thanks for the suggestion, I'm not totally convinced I want to expand this library, it exists for legacy reasons (it was extracted from rspec) and we don't encourage it's use.

bazay · 2020-11-24T17:33:59Z

I know a lot of teams who still use this gem in everyday use so it still has value beyond usage in legacy apps.
Ultimately I think it should be up to the individual developer to decide or at least be given the choice :)

Perhaps a solution would be to allow new contributions to be added on a new major release version (e.g. v2.0.0) to clearly extend on the original "supporting for legacy reasons" purpose of this gem.

JonRowe · 2020-11-25T11:50:30Z

I know a lot of teams who still use this gem in everyday use so it still has value beyond usage in legacy apps.
Ultimately I think it should be up to the individual developer to decide or at least be given the choice :)

Indeed it is, which is why the gem even exists, but thats different from wether the RSpec team want to accept new features which creates additional maintenance burden for us.

JonRowe · 2020-11-25T11:51:31Z

spec/rspec/its_spec.rb

+
+        it { expect(subject).to include('2 examples, 0 failures, 1 pending') }
+      end
+    end


Please take a look at how rspec-core tests example groups, this isn't a solution we would want to merge.

Hey @JonRowe I've updated the specs. Let me know if they're okay

I guess Jon meant something more like this.

I couldn't copy the simplicity of that example exactly, because we're working with it (example) vs fits (describe) so they need to be handled differently, reflected in the updated spec. Not sure if this is as clear as what I had before but it works I guess 🙁

bazay · 2020-12-04T15:07:07Z

spec/rspec/its_spec.rb

+        end
+
+        expect(ex_its.examples.first.metadata[:skip]).to be_falsey
+        expect(ex_xits.examples.first.metadata[:skip]).to be_truthy


FYI #its returns a RSpec describe block rather than the actual example, which is why we need to call examples on that describe block (always containing just 1) then selecting our its example.
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-its/pull/79/files#diff-39939cafdb9cee9c4840e8adc3819e0a45dafa210f75a51a34ed5bdb74c7ef4fL123

Isn't metadata applied to this example group itself? Can you check example group metadata instead?

That doesn't appear to be the case:

pry(#<RSpec::ExampleGroups::RSpecIts::Fits>)> ex_fits.metadata => {:execution_result=>#<RSpec::Core::Example::ExecutionResult:0x007fbdf61f6268>, :block=>#<Proc:0x007fbdf61f64c0@/Users/baron/Developer/personal/rspec-its/lib/rspec/its.rb:123>, :description_args=>["class"], :description=>"class", :full_description=>" class", :described_class=>nil, :file_path=>"./spec/rspec/its_spec.rb", :line_number=>400, :location=>"./spec/rspec/its_spec.rb:400", :parent_example_group=> {:execution_result=>#<RSpec::Core::Example::ExecutionResult:0x007fbdf61fe648>, :block=>#<Proc:0x007fbdf61fe8c8@/Users/baron/Developer/personal/rspec-its/spec/rspec/its_spec.rb:396>, :description_args=>[nil], :description=>"", :full_description=>"", :described_class=>nil, :file_path=>"./spec/rspec/its_spec.rb", :line_number=>396, :location=>"./spec/rspec/its_spec.rb:396"}}

and on the example group:

pry(#<RSpec::ExampleGroups::RSpecIts::Fits>)> ex_fits.example_group.metadata => {:execution_result=>#<RSpec::Core::Example::ExecutionResult:0x007fbdf626e560>, :block=>nil, :description_args=>[nil], :description=>"", :full_description=>" class ", :described_class=>nil, :file_path=>"(pry)", :line_number=>8, :location=>"(pry):8", :parent_example_group=> {:execution_result=>#<RSpec::Core::Example::ExecutionResult:0x007fbdf61f6268>, :block=>#<Proc:0x007fbdf61f64c0@/Users/baron/Developer/personal/rspec-its/lib/rspec/its.rb:123>, :description_args=>["class"], :description=>"class", :full_description=>" class", :described_class=>nil, :file_path=>"./spec/rspec/its_spec.rb", :line_number=>400, :location=>"./spec/rspec/its_spec.rb:400", :parent_example_group=> {:execution_result=>#<RSpec::Core::Example::ExecutionResult:0x007fbdf61fe648>, :block=>#<Proc:0x007fbdf61fe8c8@/Users/baron/Developer/personal/rspec-its/spec/rspec/its_spec.rb:396>, :description_args=>[nil], :description=>"", :full_description=>"", :described_class=>nil, :file_path=>"./spec/rspec/its_spec.rb", :line_number=>396, :location=>"./spec/rspec/its_spec.rb:396"}}}

You are right, metadata is only set on the example itself

rspec-its/lib/rspec/its.rb

Line 169 in 97d9e04

example(nil, *options, &block)

lib/rspec/its.rb

pirj · 2020-12-04T21:11:49Z

spec/rspec/its_spec.rb

+        end
+
+        expect(ex_its.examples.first.metadata[:skip]).to be_falsey
+        expect(ex_xits.examples.first.metadata[:skip]).to be_truthy


Isn't metadata applied to this example group itself? Can you check example group metadata instead?

spec/spec_helper.rb

spec/rspec/its_spec.rb

pirj · 2020-12-04T21:19:07Z

spec/rspec/its_spec.rb

+
+        it { expect(subject).to include('2 examples, 0 failures, 1 pending') }
+      end
+    end


I guess Jon meant something more like this.

bazay · 2020-12-07T21:37:45Z

Looks like something unusual happened whilst running the test-suite. Perhaps Travis needs to be kicked 👢

pirj · 2020-12-12T08:44:48Z

Perhaps Travis

We're moving other repos to GHA. Not focused on rspec-its/rspec-collection-matchers, you can lend a hand if you like.

bazay · 2020-12-14T16:54:05Z

Sure I can take a look

bazay · 2020-12-14T17:46:16Z

I've added GHA here: #80

RSpec core library has a convention of prepending 'f' and 'x' to it's methods to support running certain blocks or tests with :focus or :skip tags. This commit aims to bring rspec-its inline with this convention by making #fits and #xits methods available to the spec writer.

bazay · 2021-01-06T12:56:04Z

Hey @JonRowe thanks for merging in your GHA changes. Looks like Travis is having some trouble installing bundler, though not sure why as gem install bundler -v '< 2' isn't specified in the .travis.yml from what I can tell 🤔

bazay · 2021-01-12T11:21:40Z

Hey @JonRowe @pirj any update on this - is there anything you want me to do on my end? :)

pirj

Looks good to me.
Thanks for handling this!

bazay · 2021-01-26T11:31:53Z

ping @JonRowe 😬

JonRowe · 2021-01-26T11:43:53Z

Thanks for the suggestion, I'm not totally convinced I want to expand this library, it exists for legacy reasons (it was extracted from rspec) and we don't encourage it's use.

ping @JonRowe 😬

My original reticence remains, I don't have time to maintain this gem and release new features for it, so this is far down on my to do list.

JonRowe · 2024-11-04T00:21:41Z

👋 I'm closing this because although this gem is maintained, it isn't going to be feature expanded, you can tag focus / skip via metadata if needed.

pirj reviewed Nov 20, 2020

View reviewed changes

spec/rspec/its_spec.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JonRowe reviewed Nov 24, 2020

View reviewed changes

lib/rspec/its/version.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

bazay force-pushed the add-fits-and-xits-aliases branch 2 times, most recently from 8cc4ae1 to 68fd1b0 Compare November 24, 2020 17:27

bazay force-pushed the add-fits-and-xits-aliases branch from 68fd1b0 to 472740e Compare November 25, 2020 09:37

JonRowe reviewed Nov 25, 2020

View reviewed changes

bazay force-pushed the add-fits-and-xits-aliases branch 5 times, most recently from 36aa30d to 97d9e04 Compare December 2, 2020 15:44

bazay commented Dec 4, 2020

View reviewed changes

pirj reviewed Dec 4, 2020

View reviewed changes

bazay force-pushed the add-fits-and-xits-aliases branch from 42878da to 8927302 Compare January 6, 2021 12:11

Fix comments

78e4049

bazay force-pushed the add-fits-and-xits-aliases branch from 8927302 to 78e4049 Compare January 7, 2021 13:09

pirj approved these changes Jan 12, 2021

View reviewed changes

JonRowe closed this Nov 4, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add #fits and #xits methods #79

Add #fits and #xits methods #79

bazay commented Nov 20, 2020

bazay commented Nov 23, 2020

JonRowe commented Nov 24, 2020

bazay commented Nov 24, 2020 •

edited

Loading

JonRowe commented Nov 25, 2020

JonRowe Nov 25, 2020

bazay Dec 2, 2020

pirj Dec 4, 2020

bazay Dec 7, 2020

bazay Dec 4, 2020 •

edited

Loading

pirj Dec 4, 2020

bazay Dec 6, 2020 •

edited

Loading

pirj Dec 6, 2020

pirj Dec 4, 2020

pirj Dec 4, 2020

bazay commented Dec 7, 2020

pirj commented Dec 12, 2020

bazay commented Dec 14, 2020

bazay commented Dec 14, 2020

bazay commented Jan 6, 2021

bazay commented Jan 12, 2021

pirj left a comment

bazay commented Jan 26, 2021

JonRowe commented Jan 26, 2021

JonRowe commented Nov 4, 2024

Add #fits and #xits methods #79

Add #fits and #xits methods #79

Conversation

bazay commented Nov 20, 2020

bazay commented Nov 23, 2020

JonRowe commented Nov 24, 2020

bazay commented Nov 24, 2020 • edited Loading

JonRowe commented Nov 25, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bazay Dec 4, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bazay Dec 6, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bazay commented Dec 7, 2020

pirj commented Dec 12, 2020

bazay commented Dec 14, 2020

bazay commented Dec 14, 2020

bazay commented Jan 6, 2021

bazay commented Jan 12, 2021

pirj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bazay commented Jan 26, 2021

JonRowe commented Jan 26, 2021

JonRowe commented Nov 4, 2024

bazay commented Nov 24, 2020 •

edited

Loading

bazay Dec 4, 2020 •

edited

Loading

bazay Dec 6, 2020 •

edited

Loading