-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 124
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # 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