Vincent Esche

Probably, yes. Unless rspec provided a convenience macro à la ```rust rspec_tags!( foo, bar, baz, blee ); ``` which would do all the necessary work for you.

I’d like to be able to mark contexts as `smoke`, `exhaustive`, etc. So that I can easily add … > ### Smoke Test > > Run the test suite using...

I'm wondering if this might better be implemented in a helper crate? 🤔 See my comment on ["Async test"](https://github.com/mackwic/rspec/issues/19#issuecomment-323703319).

[`thread_local!(…)`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/thread/struct.LocalKey.html) might help us here. 🤔

> I'm glad you are motivated to work on Rspec ! 😀 I stumbled upon my old abandoned PR and figured I should get back on it and not leave...

An alternative approach might be to keep `ctx.` as is but provide an optional compiler plugin with syntax similar to [stainless](https://github.com/reem/stainless) or [shiny](https://github.com/farcaller/shiny) which would then get expanded to rspec's...

I have a working barebones [proof-of-concept](https://github.com/rust-rspec/experiments/tree/master/syntax) for a suite-assembly using `thread_local!`, which would allow for syntax similar to this: ```rust fn main() { scenario!("test", env: Environment, || { suite!("suite", env:...

While it doesn't look like too much of an improvement over the current state it *allows for optional arguments*, such as *tags* thanks to the use of macros: ```rust fn...

For reference: The equivalent snippet (sans tags) in rspec's current state would look like this: ```rust fn main() { rspec::run(&rspec::suite("suite", Environment(42), |ctx| { ctx.context("context", |ctx| { ctx.example("example", |env| { env.0...

I too am on vacation this week. But for me this means no coding as my brand-new MBP is in week-long repair for a broken keyboard. Looking forward to what...