There is an option "--reverse" to run examples in the reverse order which is good for detecting inter-dependencies between examples. Is it feasible for rspec to automatically switch between "forward" and "reverse" order each time a spec is run? My goal is to detect inter-dependencies sooner than later... Thanks Alvin.
On Nov 08, 2007, at 6:07 pm, Alvin Schur wrote:> My goal is to detect inter-dependencies sooner than later...I have to say I''ve NEVER run specs backwards. Am I sitting on a time bomb? Are there subtle traps that can create inter-dependencies between specs? To look at my specs I would not assume that running order matters - I don''t think I''ve ever used before(:all) for example. Ashkey -- blog @ http://aviewfromafar.net/ linked-in @ http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran currently @ home
> On Nov 08, 2007, at 6:07 pm, Alvin Schur wrote: > > >> My goal is to detect inter-dependencies sooner than later... >> > > > I have to say I''ve NEVER run specs backwards. Am I sitting on a time > bomb? Are there subtle traps that can create inter-dependencies > between specs? To look at my specs I would not assume that running > order matters - I don''t think I''ve ever used before(:all) for example. > > Ashkey >Our team uses Test::Unit and numerous inter-dependencies have crept in. Our team is also slowly moving to rspec. Part of resolving the inter-dependencies is: 1) education 2) early detection I don''t want to be the "dependency police" particularly if rspec can do the job automatically for everyone on the team. Alvin.
On Nov 11, 2007 11:01 AM, Alvin Schur <a.schur at nucleus.com> wrote:> > > On Nov 08, 2007, at 6:07 pm, Alvin Schur wrote: > > > > > >> My goal is to detect inter-dependencies sooner than later... > >> > > > > > > I have to say I''ve NEVER run specs backwards. Am I sitting on a time > > bomb? Are there subtle traps that can create inter-dependencies > > between specs? To look at my specs I would not assume that running > > order matters - I don''t think I''ve ever used before(:all) for example. > > > > Ashkey > > > Our team uses Test::Unit and numerous inter-dependencies have crept in. > Our team is also slowly moving to rspec. > > Part of resolving the inter-dependencies is: > > 1) education > 2) early detection > > I don''t want to be the "dependency police" particularly if rspec can do > the job automatically for everyone on the team.Well - I don''t think rspec should do this implicitly - that might cause quite a bit of confusion for unsuspecting devs trying to debug. I command line arg like --toggle_reverse might work - but you''ll have to submit a feature request in the tracker and probably a patch if you want to see it any time soon. Very low priority on my list.> > Alvin. > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
On Nov 11, 2007, at 12:47 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:> On Nov 11, 2007 11:01 AM, Alvin Schur <a.schur at nucleus.com> wrote: >> >>> On Nov 08, 2007, at 6:07 pm, Alvin Schur wrote: >>> >>> >>>> My goal is to detect inter-dependencies sooner than later... >>>> >>> >>> >>> I have to say I''ve NEVER run specs backwards. Am I sitting on a >>> time >>> bomb? Are there subtle traps that can create inter-dependencies >>> between specs? To look at my specs I would not assume that running >>> order matters - I don''t think I''ve ever used before(:all) for >>> example. >>> >>> Ashkey >>> >> Our team uses Test::Unit and numerous inter-dependencies have >> crept in. >> Our team is also slowly moving to rspec. >> >> Part of resolving the inter-dependencies is: >> >> 1) education >> 2) early detection >> >> I don''t want to be the "dependency police" particularly if rspec >> can do >> the job automatically for everyone on the team. > > Well - I don''t think rspec should do this implicitly - that might > cause quite a bit of confusion for unsuspecting devs trying to debug. > > I command line arg like --toggle_reverse might work - but you''ll have > to submit a feature request in the tracker and probably a patch if you > want to see it any time soon. Very low priority on my list.I really like this idea, especially having had the following experience: My coworker had no failing tests with rake spec, but I was having failing tests with Autotest. He had introduced something into before (:all) which stored some data into the database. Oddly enough - the tests weren''t failing for him, although they were failing in reverse for me- showing a dependency between the specs. The worst part is that he was convinced this was a non-problem (because they were passing for him). I would implement this patch, if I had some good idea where I should store the state of the last test run (without adding an extra text file to my project). Scott
On Nov 11, 2007 3:50 PM, Scott Taylor <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:> > > On Nov 11, 2007, at 12:47 PM, David Chelimsky wrote: > > > On Nov 11, 2007 11:01 AM, Alvin Schur <a.schur at nucleus.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Nov 08, 2007, at 6:07 pm, Alvin Schur wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> My goal is to detect inter-dependencies sooner than later... > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I have to say I''ve NEVER run specs backwards. Am I sitting on a > >>> time > >>> bomb? Are there subtle traps that can create inter-dependencies > >>> between specs? To look at my specs I would not assume that running > >>> order matters - I don''t think I''ve ever used before(:all) for > >>> example. > >>> > >>> Ashkey > >>> > >> Our team uses Test::Unit and numerous inter-dependencies have > >> crept in. > >> Our team is also slowly moving to rspec. > >> > >> Part of resolving the inter-dependencies is: > >> > >> 1) education > >> 2) early detection > >> > >> I don''t want to be the "dependency police" particularly if rspec > >> can do > >> the job automatically for everyone on the team. > > > > Well - I don''t think rspec should do this implicitly - that might > > cause quite a bit of confusion for unsuspecting devs trying to debug. > > > > I command line arg like --toggle_reverse might work - but you''ll have > > to submit a feature request in the tracker and probably a patch if you > > want to see it any time soon. Very low priority on my list. > > I really like this idea, especially having had the following experience: > > My coworker had no failing tests with rake spec, but I was having > failing tests with Autotest. He had introduced something into before > (:all) which stored some data into the database. Oddly enough - the > tests weren''t failing for him, although they were failing in reverse > for me- showing a dependency between the specs. The worst part is > that he was convinced this was a non-problem (because they were > passing for him). > > I would implement this patch, if I had some good idea where I should > store the state of the last test run (without adding an extra text > file to my project).You''ve got to maintain state between processes. How else would you do it besides a text file?> > Scott > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >