rspec users - Oct 2008 - can I get more details in the "rake spec" output (e.g. for eql fail, what was the actual value that was returned)???

Hi,
Can I get more details in the "rake spec" output (e.g. for eql fail,
what
was the actual value that was returned)??? Another example might be what the
exception actually is in a case the "should not raise exception"
fails...


Regards
Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20081007/2c09d67c/attachment.html>

What are you currently seeing?  afaik, you should currently see all the
dots and a few F''s when specs fail, and then after that you''ll
see
detailed failure messages including backtraces.

Pat


"Greg Hauptmann" <greg.hauptmann.ruby at gmail.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Can I get more details in the "rake spec" output (e.g. for eql
fail, what was the actual value that was returned)??? Another example might be
what the exception
> actually is in a case the "should not raise exception" fails...
>
> Regards
> Greg
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

here''s some examples:

''Recurring.add_projections: weekly & non-reconcile & starting
in past should
update balances appropriately'' FAILED
expected 1001, got #<BigDecimal:22a68d4,''0.1E4'',4(12)>
(using .eql?)
./spec/models/recurring_spec.rb:140:
==> Oh, actually seems to work but gives the figure in Engineering notation
- I wonder if there''s a way to improve the readability here?

''Recurring.add projections (perform credit card payment) should
calculate
amount based on offset provided'' FAILED
expected no Exception, got #<RuntimeError: It should display this
exception>
==> Actually does show exception name, but doesn''t give a back
trace?  Is
there a way to see the back trace if required?

tks



On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> What are you currently seeing?  afaik, you should currently see all the
> dots and a few F''s when specs fail, and then after that
you''ll see
> detailed failure messages including backtraces.
>
> Pat
>
>
> "Greg Hauptmann" <greg.hauptmann.ruby at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Can I get more details in the "rake spec" output (e.g. for
eql fail, what
> was the actual value that was returned)??? Another example might be what
the
> exception
> > actually is in a case the "should not raise exception"
fails...
> >
> > Regards
> > Greg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20081007/d484aa51/attachment.html>

On 2008-10-07, at 00:25, Greg Hauptmann wrote:
> ''Recurring.add projections (perform credit card payment) should  
> calculate amount based on offset provided'' FAILED
> expected no Exception, got #<RuntimeError: It should display this  
> exception>
> ==> Actually does show exception name, but doesn''t give a back
> trace?  Is there a way to see the back trace if required?
Hi Greg. ``rake spec'''' accepts --trace .

Cheers,
Nick