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

Fake.DotNet.Testing.SpecFlow: Added tests and optimized API #2143

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 11, 2018

Conversation

magicmonty
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Added additional tests for SpecFlowNext and changed the API a bit, so that the required projectFile now has to be given to the run function instead of the Parameters

TODO

  • New (API-)documentation for new features exist (Note: API-docs are enough, additional docs are in help/markdown)
  • unit or integration test exists (or short reasoning why it doesn't make sense)
  • boy scout rule: "leave the code behind in a better state than you found it" (fix warnings, obsolete members or code-style in the places you worked in)
  • Fake 5 API guideline is honored

@magicmonty magicmonty changed the title Fake.DotNet.Testing.SpecFlow: Added tests and optimized API WIP: Fake.DotNet.Testing.SpecFlow: Added tests and optimized API Oct 11, 2018
@magicmonty magicmonty changed the title WIP: Fake.DotNet.Testing.SpecFlow: Added tests and optimized API Fake.DotNet.Testing.SpecFlow: Added tests and optimized API Oct 11, 2018
@magicmonty
Copy link
Contributor Author

magicmonty commented Oct 11, 2018

Fixed the failing build

@magicmonty
Copy link
Contributor Author

@matthid What I'm doing wrong here with the Mono invocation?

if projectFile |> String.isNullOrWhiteSpace
then
Trace.traceError "SpecFlow needs a non empty project file!"
failwithf "SpecFlow needs a non empty project file!"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

personally I'd probably only use failwithf (or invalidArg)

@matthid
Copy link
Member

matthid commented Oct 11, 2018

Looks good, thanks! I guess it will work in the release/next branch, lets see

@matthid matthid merged commit c935bca into fsprojects:release/next Oct 11, 2018
@magicmonty magicmonty deleted the SpecFlowTests branch October 12, 2018 05:38
@matthid matthid mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2018
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.

2 participants