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

Modified to allow only string as example doc string #3074

Conversation

eisukeyeongjo
Copy link

@eisukeyeongjo eisukeyeongjo commented Mar 26, 2024

Modified to allow only string as example doc string.
Fixes #3072

corresponding PR that adds warnings in 3.99 #3073

a case of rspec below

$ cat test.rb
context do
  it :pending do
    # Only pending option without reason
    expect(true).to eq false
  end

  it pending: 'only pending option' do
    expect(true).to eq false   
  end  

  it 'description with option', pending: 'some reason' do
    expect(true).to eq false
  end
end

before

Two examples failed because pending option was recognized as description and invalid.

$ bundle exec rspec test.rb --format documentation


  pending (FAILED - 1)
  {:pending=>"only pending option"} (FAILED - 2)
  description with option (PENDING: some reason)

Pending: (Failures listed here are expected and do not affect your suite's status)

  1) description with option
     # some reason
     Failure/Error: expect(true).to eq false
     
       expected: false
            got: true
     
       (compared using ==)
     
       Diff:
       @@ -1 +1 @@
       -false
       +true
       
     # ./test.rb:12:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'

Failures:

  1) pending
     Failure/Error: expect(true).to eq false
     
       expected: false
            got: true
     
       (compared using ==)
     
       Diff:
       @@ -1 +1 @@
       -false
       +true
       
     # ./test.rb:4:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'

  2) {:pending=>"only pending option"}
     Failure/Error: expect(true).to eq false
     
       expected: false
            got: true
     
       (compared using ==)
     
       Diff:
       @@ -1 +1 @@
       -false
       +true
       
     # ./test.rb:8:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'

Finished in 0.01356 seconds (files took 0.08744 seconds to load)
3 examples, 2 failures, 1 pending

Failed examples:

rspec ./test.rb:2 # pending
rspec ./test.rb:7 # {:pending=>"only pending option"}

after

Every pending option is valid because example recognized description only if the first argument is string object.

$ bundle exec rspec test.rb --format documentation


  is expected to eq false (PENDING: No reason given)
  is expected to eq false (PENDING: only pending option)
  description with option (PENDING: some reason)

Pending: (Failures listed here are expected and do not affect your suite's status)

  1) is expected to eq false
     # No reason given
     Failure/Error: expect(true).to eq false
     
       expected: false
            got: true
     
       (compared using ==)
     
       Diff:
       @@ -1 +1 @@
       -false
       +true
       
     # ./test.rb:4:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'

  2) is expected to eq false
     # only pending option
     Failure/Error: expect(true).to eq false
     
       expected: false
            got: true
     
       (compared using ==)
     
       Diff:
       @@ -1 +1 @@
       -false
       +true
       
     # ./test.rb:8:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'

  3) description with option
     # some reason
     Failure/Error: expect(true).to eq false
     
       expected: false
            got: true
     
       (compared using ==)
     
       Diff:
       @@ -1 +1 @@
       -false
       +true
       
     # ./test.rb:12:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'

Finished in 0.01475 seconds (files took 0.08761 seconds to load)
3 examples, 0 failures, 3 pending

@eisukeyeongjo
Copy link
Author

Sorry, it looks something went wrong with rspec.
I'll check it 🙇

@eisukeyeongjo eisukeyeongjo force-pushed the allow_only_string_to_be_doc_string branch from c64ba4b to 352252d Compare March 28, 2024 12:35
@eisukeyeongjo eisukeyeongjo marked this pull request as ready for review March 28, 2024 13:13
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.

None yet

1 participant