allow --require'd modules to register runner hooks

[timbertson]

There may be a better way of doing this, but I needed a way for a --require to be able to hook into the runner's emitted events.

[uipoet]

+1. expect.js module has a function called expect that I can't get without requiring manually in every test file.

[tj]

This issue has been inactive for over 1 month so I'm closing it. If you think it's still an issue re-open. - tjbot

[tj]

I see what you're going for here, I think it's a bit magical though. I think it would be fine just to tell the user to add afterEach(mylib.checkSomething), at least it's explicit that way

[timbertson]

This means that tests will silently succeed (when they shouldn't) every time a user forgets this.

So while I agree that it's not hard, I still think it should be foolproof (by not requiring the user remember anything). If you can think of a better way to achieve the same effect, I'm all ears.

[timbertson]

Also, just re-reading the original post - the patch works for not just afterEach, but allows listening for any emitted event. Surely that is a useful feature for any kind of plugin that wants to monitor the running of tests.

[tj]

im just not a fan of implicit magic, when you can have simple explicit magic haha

[timbertson]

Ok so you won't merge this one, but perhaps the problem can be addressed in a way that doesn't require user intervention in every single test file?

For example, how about allowing a "mocha-init.js" in the test root, which allows setup including adding hooks or afterEach blocks that affect the entire test suite. Explicit, but not arduous.

It could even replace mocha.opts eventually - whatever you have in mocha.opts could become something like:

mocha.addOpts("--growl", "--etc")

The fact that it's just js allows for additional composability and flexibility (e.g only adding --growl if growl is installed)