On Nov 24, 2007 7:47 PM, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2007, at 3:17 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote: > > > On 11/21/07, Chad Humphries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> One of the recent trunk changesets modified the default behaviour to > >> fail fast if duplicate examples are detected within a single > >> behaviour/ > >> example group. This is basically letting you know you have to "it" > >> blocks in the behaviour with the same description. > >> > > > > This is correct. It's not a bug - it's by design and documented in > > CHANGES. > > > > The reason I put it in has an interesting explanation. Over the past > > few days our coverage dropped from 100% to 99.9% and we couldn't > > understand why. RCov reported that some code wasn't being covered, but > > I *knew* there were examples covering it. > > > > Something was fishy. > > > > Then I remembered that Brian a few days ago did a change to the > > internals - every it block now creates a method with the same name as > > the description, and later calls that method to run the example. > > Nothing wrong with that, but it had some sideeffects we didn't think > > about: If there were duplicates, the last one would simply overwrite > > (monkey patch!) the previous one with the same name. And as a result > > never get run. > > > > Since I'm a fail fast kind of guy I made RSpec do that. > > In light of the duplicate examples which would come about with the > following: > > it do > foo.should == bar > end > > - how about providing the behaviour described above as an option to > the runner?
I'm not sure what you mean. Please give an example. > > > Scott > > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
