Open cpitclaudel opened 4 years ago
There is the (undoumented) assume
macro, which does more or less the same as your signal
command. It is not possible to use in describe
, only in it
.
It should be possible to use assume
in a before-each
, but due to how the test runner is implemented it will still run the it
form. If the it
form signals an error the spec should be marked as failing rather than skipped.
But your experiments show differently, I'll have to investigate further at a later time.
Se also #119.
I have some ideas on how to address this, but it will require some rework of the internal plumbing which always feels a bit risky.
ERT has a convenient
(skip-unless …)
form that makes a test conditional. What's the equivalent in buttercup?Signaling from
it
(e.g.(signal 'buttercup-pending "SKIPPED (interactive-only)")
) works fine, but signaling fromdescribe
doesn't print anything next to the section title; that is, this code:outputs this:
I also tried adding the signal form to a before-each, but that didn't seem to do anything.