rspec users - Sep 2007 - Going beyond the default html formatter/report?

Hi!

I wonder does anybody planning to go beyond the default html formatter/report?

The current html report is nice and green but what about to go a
little silly and enable also user input. For example to let customer
to add a new pending spec, comments etc. I feel it might be mentally
easier for some customers to jump into spec world when it is possible
to give input at "the same place".

Integrate to trac or very lightweight standalone stuff. However it
should not be trac reinventing effort.

I haven''t use rspec with customer yet but planning to do so with next
project, so I might overreact about this matter right now.

Priit

On 9/9/07, Priit Tamboom <priit.tamboom at eesti.ee>
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I wonder does anybody planning to go beyond the default html
formatter/report?
>
> The current html report is nice and green but what about to go a
> little silly and enable also user input. For example to let customer
> to add a new pending spec, comments etc. I feel it might be mentally
> easier for some customers to jump into spec world when it is possible
> to give input at "the same place".
>
> Integrate to trac or very lightweight standalone stuff. However it
> should not be trac reinventing effort.
>
> I haven''t use rspec with customer yet but planning to do so with
next
> project, so I might overreact about this matter right now.
>
This sounds like a fantastic idea. Why don''t you give it a shot?

Aslak

> Priit
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

Hey all,
A couple of weeks a go I posted a quested about using rSpec to spec C 
code.  Soon after I posted that I found about about SWIG.. anyways, I 
have posted a quick example on how easy it is to use rSpec with C:
http://www.benmabey.com/2007/09/09/bdd_your_c/

-Ben

Ben Mabey wrote:
> Hey all,
> A couple of weeks a go I posted a quested about using rSpec to spec C 
> code.  Soon after I posted that I found about about SWIG.. anyways, I 
> have posted a quick example on how easy it is to use rSpec with C:
> http://www.benmabey.com/2007/09/09/bdd_your_c/
>
> -Ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>   
heh.. It was actually a ''question'' I posted, not a
''quested'' :)

On 9/9/07, Ben Mabey <ben at benmabey.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
> A couple of weeks a go I posted a quested about using rSpec to spec C
> code.  Soon after I posted that I found about about SWIG.. anyways, I
> have posted a quick example on how easy it is to use rSpec with C:
> http://www.benmabey.com/2007/09/09/bdd_your_c/
>
> -Ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
That''s badass.  I don''t write C, but thanks for sharing.

Pat

El 10/9/2007, a las 8:01, Ben Mabey escribi?:
> Hey all,
> A couple of weeks a go I posted a quested about using rSpec to spec C
> code.  Soon after I posted that I found about about SWIG.. anyways, I
> have posted a quick example on how easy it is to use rSpec with C:
> http://www.benmabey.com/2007/09/09/bdd_your_c/
Great stuff.

The other use I''ve found for RSpec is testing Ruby *extensions*  
written in C, because then you''ve got your Ruby API for them anyway.  
Hadn''t thought of using SWIG for testing non-extension C code.

I''m looking forward to seeing if I can somehow test Objective-C code  
with RSpec and the RubyCocoa bridge once Mac OS X Leopard comes out  
(RubyCocoa is an open-source bridge for communicating between Ruby  
and Objective-C code, specifically in the Cocoa environment). Haven''t  
looked into it yet (want to wait for RubyCocoa 1.0, and for Leopard  
to go public) but am hopeful that it will be possible...

Cheers,
Wincent

On Sep 9, 2007, at 4:15 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
> On 9/9/07, Priit Tamboom <priit.tamboom at eesti.ee> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I wonder does anybody planning to go beyond the default html  
>> formatter/report?
>>
>> The current html report is nice and green but what about to go a
>> little silly and enable also user input. For example to let customer
>> to add a new pending spec, comments etc. I feel it might be mentally
>> easier for some customers to jump into spec world when it is possible
>> to give input at "the same place".
>>
>> Integrate to trac or very lightweight standalone stuff. However it
>> should not be trac reinventing effort.
>>
>> I haven''t use rspec with customer yet but planning to do so
with next
>> project, so I might overreact about this matter right now.
>>
>
> This sounds like a fantastic idea. Why don''t you give it a shot?
Yeah - I''m already handing the HTML report off to my boss.   He was  
amazed at it!

I agree - this sort of thing would be really nice.  Honestly, I was  
thinking it would be really nice to have some sort of diff''er for the  
HTML report - so that my boss could see what has been newly  
implemented between different commits.

My best low tech solution was to generate the text specdoc, and diff  
it in trac.  I would help you out with this tool (or set of tools) if  
they seem intriguing to you.

Scott

> > This sounds like a fantastic idea. Why don''t you give it a
shot?
Thanks for feedback, I''ll take more active role and perhaps able to
produce some useful stuff as well :-)
>
> Yeah - I''m already handing the HTML report off to my boss.   He
was
> amazed at it!
>
> I agree - this sort of thing would be really nice.  Honestly, I was
> thinking it would be really nice to have some sort of diff''er for
the
> HTML report - so that my boss could see what has been newly
> implemented between different commits.
>
> My best low tech solution was to generate the text specdoc, and diff
> it in trac.  I would help you out with this tool (or set of tools) if
> they seem intriguing to you.
>
> Scott
Very good idea indeed.

Are you hanging out at rspec irc (my name is priidu there). I have
more time at weekends, so we can discuss about ideas/details more
quickly.

Priit

On 9/9/07, Priit Tamboom <priit.tamboom at eesti.ee>
wrote:
>
> I wonder does anybody planning to go beyond the default html
> formatter/report?
>
Two things on that subject came up today, during some RSpec work.  It would
be nice if:

   1. The report contained pending messages, when specified, e.g.:
>    describe "Secure passwords with MD5" do

       pending "Waiting on selection of an MD5 library."


   end
>
   The HTML report contains ''Secure passwords with MD5'' as
pending, but
   does not add the explanation as to why.
   2. It would be nice to be able to use DHTML expansion to see the
   source of the spec, sometimes; when we''re doing walkthroughs with
the
   customer representative, it''s useful for him to be able to see the
source as
   well as the descriptions.

  - Geoffrey
-- 
Geoffrey Wiseman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070911/48208b08/attachment.html

On 9/11/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <geoffrey.wiseman at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 9/9/07, Priit Tamboom <priit.tamboom at eesti.ee> wrote:
> > I wonder does anybody planning to go beyond the default html
> formatter/report?
> >
>
> Two things on that subject came up today, during some RSpec work.  It would
> be nice if:
>
> The report contained pending messages, when specified, e.g.:
> > describe "Secure passwords with MD5" do
>
> >     pending "Waiting on selection of an MD5 library."
>
> > end
> >
> The HTML report contains ''Secure passwords with MD5'' as
pending, but does
> not add the explanation as to why.
> It would be nice to be able to use DHTML expansion to see the source of the
> spec, sometimes; when we''re doing walkthroughs with the customer
> representative, it''s useful for him to be able to see the source
as well as
> the descriptions.   - Geoffrey
These are great suggestions. Please, please, please put these in
feature requests where they are guaranteed to stay on the radar and
not on this list where they are guaranteed to get lost in the shuffle.

Cheers,
David
> --
> Geoffrey Wiseman
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 9/11/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 9/11/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <geoffrey.wiseman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/9/07, Priit Tamboom <priit.tamboom at eesti.ee> wrote:
> > > I wonder does anybody planning to go beyond the default html
> > formatter/report?
> > >
> >
> > Two things on that subject came up today, during some RSpec work.  It
> would
> > be nice if:
> >
> > The report contained pending messages, when specified, e.g.:
> > > describe "Secure passwords with MD5" do
> >
> > >     pending "Waiting on selection of an MD5 library."
> >
> > > end
> > >
> > The HTML report contains ''Secure passwords with MD5''
as pending, but
> does
> > not add the explanation as to why.
> > It would be nice to be able to use DHTML expansion to see the source
of
> the
> > spec, sometimes; when we''re doing walkthroughs with the
customer
> > representative, it''s useful for him to be able to see the
source as well
> as
> > the descriptions.   - Geoffrey
>
> These are great suggestions. Please, please, please put these in
> feature requests where they are guaranteed to stay on the radar and
> not on this list where they are guaranteed to get lost in the shuffle.
>
Sure; just wasn''t sure if the people volunteering to look at the report
were
likely to use the tracker, but ... I guess as long as they appear in the
tracker, that''s the main thing, and then regardless of who implements
them
and when, it''s captured.
-- 
Geoffrey Wiseman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070911/8d54b8f7/attachment.html

On Sep 11, 2007, at 4:54 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 9/11/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <geoffrey.wiseman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/9/07, Priit Tamboom <priit.tamboom at eesti.ee> wrote:
>>> I wonder does anybody planning to go beyond the default html
>> formatter/report?
>>>
>>
>> Two things on that subject came up today, during some RSpec work.   
>> It would
>> be nice if:
>>
>> The report contained pending messages, when specified, e.g.:
>>> describe "Secure passwords with MD5" do
>>
>>>     pending "Waiting on selection of an MD5 library."
>>
>>> end
>>>
>> The HTML report contains ''Secure passwords with MD5''
as pending,
>> but does
>> not add the explanation as to why.
>> It would be nice to be able to use DHTML expansion to see the  
>> source of the
>> spec, sometimes; when we''re doing walkthroughs with the
customer
>> representative, it''s useful for him to be able to see the
source
>> as well as
>> the descriptions.   - Geoffrey
>
> These are great suggestions. Please, please, please put these in
> feature requests where they are guaranteed to stay on the radar and
> not on this list where they are guaranteed to get lost in the shuffle.
Good idea.  I''ll do this for my feature now.

Scott