Jeroen Engels

Shouldn't the discussion about whether adding the `.see()` that most agreed on, not be a discussion on the AVA repo?

Man, RuleTester was really built with Mocha in mind...  versus  Even if you wrap every single one of them in a seperate test, and add https://github.com/sindresorhus/ava/issues/764#issuecomment-210701728 (though that...

This it the output with the mocha reporter (for those interested):  1. Since in AVA this is all one big test (ok, we could split them up as @twada...

True (I do need to specify the reporter too actually, so I've used the default on `spec`), but it's not much better. The problem comes ultimately from the fact that...

https://github.com/eslint/eslint/blob/master/lib%2Ftesters%2Frule-tester.js#L436-L452 It calls mocha's `describe` and `it` to create tests on the fly, then leaves mocha do the rest. I'll try and see if I can't hack it a bit...

> Sometimes you only need one thing and it's nice that you can just use it directly. True, but the name would then not necessarily be very appropriate. But that...

Sure. I feel the same as @vdemedes. Even though it's possible, I don't think that having `t.context` be a function is a good thing, mostly because the name doesn't make...

:+1: Great idea. Not sure about `no-identical-title` though, as they won't really make things more readable in the source code (only when matching AVA's output to a test). Don't forget...

> :trumpet: I'm heading over to implement the fixer for no-skip-assert. Cool ! As for `no-identical-title`, joke aside, I am against having a fix for it. The title should IMO...

For no-todo-implementation, I thought we could remove the todo modifier. Yeah we definitely don't want to remove the test body. On Fri, Dec 8, 2017, 19:41 Sindre Sorhus wrote: >...