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

(MAINT) RSpec testing format parameter #243

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 6, 2023

Conversation

coreymbe
Copy link
Contributor

@coreymbe coreymbe commented Oct 5, 2023

Summary

This commit parameterizes the RSpec testing format in the provision::run_tests task to allow users to specify either progress (default) or documentation.

Additional Context

Add any additional context about the problem here.

  • The current implementation of the task only allows for RSpec progress output which prints dots (.) for passing examples, F for failures, * for pending. As a user I would like to see more verbose output from the tests I am running. The documentation output prints the docstrings passed to describe and it methods.
  • As the task currently hardcodes output to progress, I have ensured this is the default parameter value.

Checklist

  • 🟢 Spec tests.
  • Manually verified.

@coreymbe coreymbe requested a review from a team as a code owner October 5, 2023 17:02
Copy link
Contributor

@gavindidrichsen gavindidrichsen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@coreymbe. Great work here! Would you mind adding a bit more explanation in the PR to explain the context and consequences of your change? Context: What motivated this decision? What were you trying to do that didn't work without this? Consequences: What becomes easier now (or more difficult)? Any risks introduced by the change that will need to be mitigated? The reason I'm asking for this is because we'd like to start keeping track of our design decisions and the context and consequences. See here for an example of the sort of design decision I'm talking about.

After that I'm happy to merge it in!

@coreymbe
Copy link
Contributor Author

coreymbe commented Oct 5, 2023

@gavindidrichsen :: I went ahead and updated the PR comment with a bit more context 😄.

@gavindidrichsen
Copy link
Contributor

@gavindidrichsen :: I went ahead and updated the PR comment with a bit more context 😄.

Love it @coreymbe. Thanks!

@gavindidrichsen gavindidrichsen merged commit 03cc0ad into puppetlabs:main Oct 6, 2023
6 of 7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants