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

Add reporters support to jasmine.json config file #77

Closed

Conversation

sv2dev
Copy link

@sv2dev sv2dev commented May 16, 2016

This way we can specify our reporters declaratively in the spec/support/jasmine.json config file without having to touch the runner execution.
Example:

{
  "reporters": [
    {
      "name": "jasmine-spec-reporter",
      "options": {
        "displayStacktrace": "all"
      }
    }
  ]
}

@amavisca
Copy link
Member

Since our config is a json file we can't supply reporter options that are functions which is a bit of a bummer. It seems like a lot of tooling is happy to use .js files for config for this reason, I wonder what the steps would be for us to support that.

@slackersoft
Copy link
Member

I believe you should also be able to add a reporter from a helper file now as well, so I'm not sure is this is functionality that we need in the library.

@sgravrock
Copy link
Member

Please see my comment on #159 for some thoughts on what reporter configuration could look like in a mixed ES/CommonJS module world.

@sgravrock
Copy link
Member

Closing since this has been overtaken by changes in Jasmine and in the surrounding ecosystem.

@sgravrock sgravrock closed this Jul 23, 2022
sgravrock added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2022
This supports more complex scenarios than the --reporter= CLI flag
(multiple reporters, reporters that need configuration, reporters
that aren't default exports, etc) without pushing the complexity of
all of those scenarios into Jasmine or requiring the user to move
to programmatic usage.

See #77 and #159.
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.

4 participants