replace around with hooks

[grosser]

No description provided.

[grosser]

@splattael what do you think of putting this into minitest-around so an alternative is out there as gem ?

[Nakilon]

So it's not implemented?
Wanted to use maxitest in a long integration test and discovered it seems to be incompatible with -hooks:

require "maxitest/autorun"
require "minitest/hooks"

describe "" do
  before :all do
    p :all
  end
  it "1" do p 1 end
  it "2" do p 2 end
end

:all
1
.:all
2
.

UPD: Oh wait, I guess I'm doing something wrong. It is the same with plain minitest either. Am I misusing the dsl?

[grosser]

do you need to use minitest/hooks ?

[grosser]

ah same without :/

[grosser]

ah yeah that never worked ... I think the argument is just ignored, would be nice to raise argumenterror
... let_all can help ... just call it in before to get the same behavior

[grosser]

and a PR to make before/after raise or even support :each + :all would be nice ... could reuse let_all under the hood ...

[Nakilon]

  let_all :_ do
    p :all
  end
  before do
    _
  end

works! Thank you for a quick response.

[Nakilon]

This hack is weird though in the way that if there was an exception in let_all it gets reevaluated for every example.

[grosser]

maybe don't call it _ to avoid 👁️ ♋ :D

[grosser]

yeah, but caching exceptions is also super weird :)

[Nakilon]

Some workaround to not reevaluate if failed:

describe "" do

  let_all :before_all do
    p :all
    fail
    true
  rescue
  end
  before{ before_all or fail }

  it "1" do p 1 end
  it "2" do p 2 end
end

:all
EE

[Nakilon]

Or even

  let_all :before_all do
    p :all
    fail "all"
    false
  rescue
    $!
  end
  before{ before_all and fail before_all }

to reraise the caught error.

[grosser]

#53 to block these broken cases and add before :all looks good ?

[grosser]

afaik this is not doable atm without making the ordering un-intuitive
created new issue for continued discussion #54