-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
Redesign specs style #44
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
Conversation
|
@zverok thanks a lot for helping us redesign it! There are some test failures, are those introduced by this PR? If so, then they need to be fixed. |
|
@certik Oops, I was busy yesterday evening, checked specs only locally (they worked), forgot to re-check at Travis. Will fix tiday. |
|
@zverok Thanks for taking the time to redesign it! The specs are shorter and more readable now. In many cases things that you have added, I didn't even know one could do it that way. As you pointed it out, we need to expose shorter functions for |
.travis.yml
Outdated
| - gem install gem-path --no-ri --no-rdoc | ||
| - cd $HOME/gems/symengine-0.1.0/ | ||
| - bundle exec rspec | ||
| - bundle exec rspec --require ./spec/spec_helper.rb |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As we are testing against installed gem, and gem files are not including .rspec, we need to specify this directly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see. Since we are already including the spec/ folder, I guess there is no harm in including .rspec too. By the way, should spec/ folder be packaged with the gem?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm usually including it :)
And, if we'll look at popular gems, they are typically doing the same thing.
So, I think it is ok (as well as .rspec file inclusion).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cool. We can do it after this PR is merged. Let's wait for the tests.
|
OK, Travis seems happy with current state of the things, and AppVeyor is somehow hanging it for ages. I think, it can be merged (it is really doubtful that specs redesign have broke something only on Windows). |
|
Thanks for the PR |
|
Thanks @zverok for the PR! |
|
👍 |
As per our email discussion.
What is done here:
arit_spec.rbwas merged intobasic_spec.rb;#inspecttoBasicclass, as per Add meaningful #inspect to classes #40, for better debugging:expected: #<SymEngine::Pow:0xa84e298>, got: #<SymEngine::Add:0xa84e2d4>expected: #<SymEngine::Pow(x**y)>, got: #<SymEngine::Add(z)>)rspec-itsgem for shorter matchers.Hope that helps.