-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 122
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
Show detail for failing examples using aggregate_failures #74
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
13fc795
to
6cb2758
Compare
I am waiting for review and merge from owner |
Sorry that this hasn't had attention in a while, @jasoncodes. I really like this idea, but I'm very concerned that the parsing code seems to be a bit brittle and may break if future rspecs change output formats slightly. I'm not sure what the best answer here, which is why I haven't really jumped into it. 🤔 |
What if I made the guards less strict so instead of raising on an unexpected format, they instead silently continue? This should at worst output a bit of duplication instead of erroring. I’m not sure how to best add coverage for that though. Conditionally stub out |
@sj26 Sorry to bother, but do you have any further opinion on this? |
@sj26 Any chance of an update? |
Right now we're running on a fork based on this PR. I too would appreciate any opinions on a way forward. Thanks! |
Any updates on this guys, would really love to see it going in ? |
This ensures the Test Summary plugin properly escapes "blank" lines to avoid breaking out of the Markdown code block.
This would be a great addition to merge and then cut a release... |
@sj26 any chance we can get this one on a new release? :) |
Fixes #56
Example
Before
After
Note
There is a minor change to how backtraces are formatted. It’s now the same as what
rspec
shows when ran from directly:Before
After