On Nov 18, 2007 4:59 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > As an experiment in playing nice with others, we've added the ability > in rspec's trunk to do this: > > class ThingExamples < Spec::ExampleGroup > > def should_do_stuff > ... > end > > end > > This is how rspec 0.1 worked, and for people already comfortable with > the classes/methods approach of Test::Unit, it is a more comfortable > entry point to rspec. > > For others, however, it has created a problem: you can't write helper > methods that start with should_ because rspec treats them as examples. > > Quick show of hands, please: > > +1 (with comments please) for keeping the ability to write examples > using should_ > -1 (with comments please) for bagging it because you think you should > be able to write helper methods that start with should_.
-1. I don't want to encourage a third style for examples (#test_* and RSpec #it is enough). It doesn't bring anything new to the table, especially when #it can be used inside TestCase classes. Aslak > > You may want to peek at the conversation on this ticket before you > respond: > http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=3149&aid=15638&group_id=797 > > Thanks for playing, > Cheers, > David > > ps - In the interest of full disclosure, this is not going to be a > majority vote. My interest is in making rspec more accessible to > people who are likely not on this list and whose voices will not be > heard. I'm just looking to take a pulse from a wider group than the > few that have commented on the ticket. > > pps - One suggestion that came up was to make this a configuration > option. I don't love that because it makes rspec more complicated, but > it's a possibility. > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
