buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Failing Scala BDD specs
Date Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:29:06 GMT
In lib/buildr/scala/tests.rb lines 112, 113:
ant.includes group_includes.join(" ") if group_includes
ant.excludes group_excludes.join(" ") if group_excludes

The arguments should be name/value pairs, a string argument doesn't do much
good. Commenting out these two lines doesn't break tests_spec.rb.

Assaf


On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Turns out that I just hadn't updated the specs to add the $ back into the
>> expected lists.  Specifications are defined as singleton objects, which
>> means that the test class which is running is actually '<specName>$'.  I
>> used to trim off that trailing $, but that isn't really an option with the
>> new spec runner.  Ideas welcome here.
>>
>> Incidentally, the new spec runner does provide some very important
>> benefits
>> -- like being able to detect and run *any* bona fide specification object,
>> not just the ones which lack companion classes.  Also, this spec runner
>> makes it possible in future to run specifications defined as classes
>> (rather
>> than objects), something which is supported by Specs but not Buildr.  So,
>> the solution isn't to just drop the new runner; I just have to figure out
>> a
>> way to make this work without exposing all those ugly $ characters to the
>> end-user.
>>
>> In the meantime, I've fixed the specs and committed the results.
>>
>
> Awsome. I'm working on getting all the specs to pass with Ruby 1.9, one set
> at a time, so I need specs to first pass with 1.8.
>
> Assaf
>
>
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Those tests were passing for me yesterday, before the Rspec upgrade.
>>  Well,
>> > *some* of them were passing.  Most were throwing errors about a helper
>> > method.  I'll take a look at it tomorrow to see if I can reproduce the
>> > failures.
>> >
>> > Daniel
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jun 16, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >  Hi Daniel,
>> >>
>> >> Assaf and I noticed some failures in spec/scala/bdd_spec.rb today.  Do
>> the
>> >> following specs fail for you?
>> >>
>> >> 1)
>> >> 'Buildr::Scala::Specs should include public classes extending
>> >> org.specs.Specification' FAILED
>> >> expected ["com.example.MySpecs$"] to include "com.example.MySpecs"
>> >> ./spec/scala/bdd_spec.rb:68:
>> >>
>> >> 2)
>> >> 'Buildr::Scala::Specs should include public classes extending
>> >> org.specs.Specification even with companion classes' FAILED
>> >> expected ["com.example.MySpecs$"] to include "com.example.MySpecs"
>> >> ./spec/scala/bdd_spec.rb:85:
>> >>
>> >> 3)
>> >> 'Buildr::Scala::Specs should report failed test names' FAILED
>> >> expected ["FailingSpecs$"] to include "FailingSpecs"
>> >> ./spec/scala/bdd_spec.rb:128:
>> >>
>> >> 4)
>> >> 'Buildr::Scala::Specs should compile and run specifications with
>> "Specs"
>> >> suffix' FAILED
>> >> expected ["HelloWorldSpecs$"] to include "HelloWorldSpecs"
>> >> ./spec/scala/bdd_spec.rb:146:
>> >>
>> >> 5)
>> >> 'Buildr::Scala::Specs should fail if specifications fail' FAILED
>> >> expected ["StringSpecs$"] to include "StringSpecs"
>> >> ./spec/scala/bdd_spec.rb:165:
>> >>
>> >> Finished in 14.103377 seconds
>> >>
>> >> 11 examples, 5 failures
>> >>
>> >> alex
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message