Running a single test about frisby

[vlucas]

As far as I know, there is no easy way to do this with the jasmine-node test runner and Frisby.js, but it is something I too have always wanted.

[dsawardekar]

I did some further investigation into this. I found jasmine-only which does the job. It adds a describe.only and it.only like mocha, which runs only that test.

I noticed that Frisby writes dynamic describe and it calls. The next step is to make frisby also support the only syntax. I'm thinking if toss is passed 'only' as an argument it writes with a dynamic it.only or describe.only instead.

I'd be happy to make this PR, just need a couple of clarifications. In frisby.js, I was hoping to add an else check for retry == 'only' and then it = it.only or describe = describe.only. The it.results and current.it is confusing me.

Or maybe there is a better way. Can you clarify what would be the simplest way to pull this off?

[vlucas]

Is there anything in Jasmine 2 that supports this? I will have to upgrade eventually anyways.

[dsawardekar]

I don't think so. There are a couple of PR's that address this #309 and #181 but are unmerged. My feeling is this is seen as something that is to be provided by external plugins and is unlikely to make jasmine core.

[vlucas]

Okay. Are we going to have to switch test runners away from jasmine-node as well to make this work?

[dsawardekar]

@vlucas No. jasmine-node works fine with jasmine-only.

From Frisby's POV an extra jasmine-only dependency needs to be added to package.json to support this feature. Frisby could require jasmine-only within itself, so any test can use describe.only and it.only without manually requiring it in every test.

The issue is Frisby's dynamic describe and it declarations which need to be modified to conditionally use the only variants. My suggestion above was to do this via toss('only')

[vlucas]

Right. That sounds like something that can be easily handled though. The dynamic creation of describe and it statements doesn't happen until the toss call, so yes - that would be the ideal place to put it.

[katerberg]

@dsawardekar @vlucas Are you implementing this or is this an issue that is still unresolved?

[dsawardekar]

@diablomarcus It's resolved for me at the moment. I ended up not needing single runs for the project I was working on at the time.

[katerberg]

Thanks @vlucas!