Only call +before/afterEach on CDRHooks conformers #387
Conversation
|
|
||
| describe(@"global afterEach", ^{ | ||
| it(@"should run after all specs", ^{ | ||
| atexit(verifyAfterEachCalledAsExpected); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is awesome! I'll have to remember this trick.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This probably further warrants that the two class examples are kept here and only have effect on static variables local to the test implementation - that way no other machinery (including other tests) can unintentionally mess with this state between the time these tests run and the time the process exits and triggers the NSCAssert validations.
|
Interesting point about not having to special case those classes now -- because that |
Rebased from and added more tests from #365
idoru
force-pushed
the
hooks-protocol-before-after-each
branch
from
e3a01d3 to
82debd2
Compare
|
Having slept on this, I'm not happy that these tests only really can see if the methods were called, but not when. In fact, as soon as a single example runs (quite likely before this test), then |
|
2db594b is closer to what I'm thinking but I only realized when I finally ran rake that this doesn't work on suites because the TestObservationHelper relies on XCTest. |
idoru
force-pushed
the
hooks-protocol-before-after-each
branch
from
2db594b to
873eabf
Compare
idoru
force-pushed
the
hooks-protocol-before-after-each
branch
from
873eabf to
14c129a
Compare
| @@ -205,7 +205,6 @@ void expectFailure(CDRSpecBlock block) { | |||
| globalValue__ = @"something"; | |||
| }); | |||
|
|
|||
| expect(globalValue__).to(be_nil); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@briancroom I think this was added in error 2 years ago... What's odd is that the example further up on line 174 seems to imply this should have raised an exception in the main spec run, but it only occurred when the spec gets redefined via construction of a CDRSpecRun in CDRHooksSpec.
Rebased from #365, some small refactoring and addition of tests for
+afterEachhook.Tests for
+afterEachare performed via asserts that are set up usingatexit(3)since Cedar specs don't have visibility outside of their own context. Would like to know if anyone has better ideas for how to test this.@tjarratt and I debated the inclusion of the test classes in
CDRHooksSpec.mmbut we ultimately felt it made the distinguishing characteristics clear. Curious to know how others feel about it.This change also stops special casing for
UIAccessibilitySafeCategory__NSObjectandSCRCExceptionsince we shouldn't expect them to conform toCDRHooks.