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

Add RSpectre to CI #1384

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Add RSpectre to CI #1384

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dgollahon
Copy link
Sponsor Collaborator

  • This can help detect unused test setup on an ongoing basis and also helps me by giving me a bigger corpus of rspectre users.

- This can help detect unused test setup on an ongoing basis and also helps me by giving me a bigger corpus of [`rspectre`](https://github.com/dgollahon/rspectre) users.
@dgollahon
Copy link
Sponsor Collaborator Author

So you may not want to add this as-is because it runs the whole test suite. This isn't currently avoidable in rspectre because that's part of how it avoids false positives.

What we could consider instead is making it a scheduled job that runs periodically which Github Actions seems to support.

In the future I may make it possible to run on subsets of tests correctly but it will mean false negatives because it can't trace the entire test suite.

@mbj
Copy link
Owner

mbj commented May 22, 2023

What we could consider instead is making it a scheduled job that runs periodically which Github Actions seems to support.

Happy to set this up. But: Mutant will soon have a parallel "non mutation test" runner, this may be fast enough to run more regular, at least for just spec/unit subset?

Edit: maybe just scoping this integration to spec/unit for now is the best trade off?

@dgollahon
Copy link
Sponsor Collaborator Author

But: Mutant will soon have a parallel "non mutation test" runner

I won't be able to make use of it since rspectre is itself an rspec runner

Edit: maybe just scoping this integration to spec/unit for now is the best trade off?

Yes, I think that might make sense but I need to add support in rspectre to exclude shared examples generally or add rspectre:disable comments or something to that effect, otherwise we will get false positives. It's something I want to think about the right way to support anyway but outside of a cron-based run I'm not sure what a good option would be fore now.

Cron run may just be the right way to use it though since it's an infrequent issue.

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

2 participants