Started adding spec for coverage #217
Conversation
|
Hi @donv! |
| config_file = File.expand_path('../fixtures/start_coverage.rb', __FILE__) | ||
|
|
||
| describe "Coverage.result" do | ||
| it "needs to be reviewed for spec completeness" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This can be removed as soon as there are specs, even if they are not exhaustive.
|
Looks good overall! |
donv
force-pushed
the
try_add_coverage_spec
branch
3 times, most recently
from
e6ec9e8 to
ea2e8a7
Compare
|
OK, applied all the comments except the separate spec for disabled coverage since there is no query. Looks good? |
|
What's the deal with the failing AppVeyor check? |
|
Ah! It is for windows. Does this mean MRI on windows is failing Ruby Spec? |
|
|
||
| describe 'Coverage.result' do | ||
| before :all do | ||
| @config_file = File.expand_path('../fixtures/start_coverage.rb', __FILE__) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is an actual fixture helper which should do exactly the same 😉 , as in https://github.com/ruby/spec/blob/master/core/module/autoload_spec.rb#L18.
Rather than Ruby Spec is still having too many expectations (on Unix features) for Windows. |
donv
force-pushed
the
try_add_coverage_spec
branch
from
55095a6 to
dbaf24f
Compare
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| 2 + 2 | |||
| Coverage.start | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does the Coverage.start does here? It seems only line 1 is reported?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is to test coverage for the file that calls Coverage.start.
|
Thank you for your contribution! |
|
Thank you for this vital project! |
My first contribution to ruby/spec, so I expect to have to change a lot.
First question is that the specs seem organized around methods, but coverage is typically the interaction between the
Coverage.startandCoverage.resultmethods. How should the specs for this interaction be organized?