Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Always send output to flake callback #98

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 12, 2019
Merged

Always send output to flake callback #98

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 12, 2019

Conversation

mike-eason
Copy link
Contributor

This change ensures that the protractor flake callback will always receive the output log even if the first test pass succeeds with no failures.

This change ensures that the protractor flake callback will always receive the output log even if the first test pass succeeds with no failures.
@NickTomlin
Copy link
Owner

Apologies for the very delayed response.

I think this sounds fine. I'm curious what is your use case?

Also, if possible could you include a unit test for this?

Thanks!

@mike-eason
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi there,

Our use case is that we want to send the log in an email at the end of the test pass. Currently the log will only be passed to the callback function if there was an error with any of the specs, we want the log regardless.

I'll add a unit test when I am back at work tomorrow.

Thanks.

@NickTomlin
Copy link
Owner

Great thanks for that detail makes sense!

@mike-eason
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi again Nick,

I have added a unit test as requested.

@ntomlinnf
Copy link

I'll troubleshoot that failure (looks like a typing issue for node 6.x) and merge this in tomorrow.

@NickTomlin NickTomlin merged commit e20ec77 into NickTomlin:master Jan 12, 2019
@NickTomlin
Copy link
Owner

🎉 This PR is included in version 3.4.0 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

@jayvdb
Copy link

jayvdb commented Jan 15, 2019

This appears to have caused #102

NickTomlin added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 15, 2019
@NickTomlin NickTomlin mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2019
@NickTomlin
Copy link
Owner

This was reverted because we thought it might have been the root of #102 but it was in fact not. I've opened #105 to restore it.

NickTomlin added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 4, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants