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

Issue 3416: Allow the spec reporter to expose multiple errors if present #3702

Conversation

nicholasbailey
Copy link
Contributor

Proposed changes

Continuing on #3672

This PR prints out multiple errors with the spec reporter if they are present. It pretty well emulates the behavior of other spec-style Jasmine reporters.

Types of changes

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

Checklist

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

Reviewers: @webdriverio/technical-committee

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 8, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #3702 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3702      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   98.32%   98.32%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files         144      144              
  Lines        3285     3289       +4     
  Branches      720      721       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         3230     3234       +4     
  Misses         50       50              
  Partials        5        5
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
.../wdio-spec-reporter/tests/__fixtures__/testdata.js 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
packages/wdio-spec-reporter/src/index.js 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b0dbaa5...d1592e9. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@christian-bromann christian-bromann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

@christian-bromann christian-bromann added the PR: Polish 💅 PRs that contain improvements on existing features label Mar 9, 2019
@christian-bromann christian-bromann merged commit 7a25d86 into webdriverio:master Mar 9, 2019
yamkay pushed a commit to MoveInc/webdriverio that referenced this pull request Sep 4, 2019
…ent (webdriverio#3702)

## Proposed changes

Continuing on [https://github.com/webdriverio/webdriverio/pull/3672](https://github.com/webdriverio/webdriverio/pull/3672)

This PR prints out multiple errors with the spec reporter if they are present. It pretty well emulates the behavior of other spec-style Jasmine reporters. 

## Types of changes

- [X] Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [X] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

## Checklist

[//]: # (_Put an `x` in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code._)

- [X] I have read the [CONTRIBUTING](https://github.com/webdriverio/webdriverio/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) doc
- [X] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
- [ ] I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

### Reviewers: @webdriverio/technical-committee
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
PR: Polish 💅 PRs that contain improvements on existing features
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants