IE 8 doesn't have Array.prototype.indexOf so this breaks there.
Reverting until we can figure out a better way to solve across all
supported browsers.
This reverts commit 663fbd0cdb.
For some reason, when you put this spec in a describe block, it causes
specs to hang on IE8. I tried to debug this for a while, and I have no
idea what is happening.
[#79533268]
- Behaves similarly to to specResults
- Since suites were stored in an object instead of an array and the
current interface exposes this object, we now must keep track of suites
twice in the reporter. We cannot just construct the object lazily,
because then the object will not update with new suite results
like it does currently (see JsApiReporterSpec:148).
[#79533268]
- Focused runnables now walk up the tree to unfocus the first focused
ancestor. Because of the way the tree is constructed, this makes sure
that each focused runnable has no focused ancestors.
[#78289686]
Add specs to test if issue #655 is present: the handler of an interval
cannot successfully clear the same interval that generated it's
invocation.
The most direct test consist in setting an interval with a handler that
calls clearInterval over that same interval and make the clock tick for
double of it's period. If the issue is present the interval's handler
will be called twice. If the issue is not present, the first invocation
of the handler will avoid a second one (because of the clearInterval).
Another test is included in order to check if recurring scheduled
functions are rescheduled before being called. Doing this in the reverse
order is the exact cause of the issue.
Required duplicating some of the logic for constructing a suite from
describe so that we could mark a suite as focused in fdescribe, but
otherwise this prevents focused tests from being run more than once.
[#73742944]
Yo, this probably isn't the best behavior. Rspec and Ginkgo definitely
do not exhibit this behavior when you nest focused runnables inside
other focused runnables. We thought fixing it, but it seems like a
nontrivial refactoring would be necessary to clean this up.
[#73742944]
- Fix bug where beforeAlls were being mutated in Suite#execute
- When Env.execute() receives a list of runnables, beforeAlls and
afterAlls are collected as beforeEachs and afterEachs. This allows
runnables to be specified in any order, regardless of if any of them
have before/afterAlls.
- Spec constructor takes a single function that returns both before and
afters, instead of two functions. This breaks the current interface
for constructing a Spec.
[#73742528]
We found that this test was always passing and had strange interactions
with the ordering of other specs. Rewriting it to explicitly finish the
afterAll after a specified interval makes it fail correctly.
[#73742528]
This makes the specs green and appears to work for most cases. I have a
number of concerns about the implementation and would appreciate
ideas/feedback.
- Suite#addExpecationResult infers if it is coming from an afterAll fn
based on if the first child of the suite is finished. This assumes
that the first child of the suite is a spec (this appears to be true
as long as there is at least one spec in the suite)
- Suites behave like unfinished specs. Because suites will propagate
expectation failures to their children suites, the afterAll
expectation reporting appears to work for suites without specs
unless you have:
1) An otherwise empty suite with an afterAll
2) An afterAll'd suite whose first suite is empty (or whose first
suite's first suite is empty (and so on))
- Changed afterAllError to afterAllEvent, so it can accommodate both
errors and expectation failures. The reporter now receives a string
instead of the actual error object. The loss of the object doesn't
affect our reporters, but may be a nice-to-have for other reporters/
the future.
- The gap between the expectations caught in Suite and QueueRunner (who
triggers reporting via an injected callback) is an array injected into
QR by the Suite. The array is then flushed at some point (currently
after the attempt… functions). This works, but is a bit goofy.
[#73741654]
