On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Rick DeNatale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/5/08, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 5, 2008, at 2:57 PM, "Rick DeNatale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:31 PM, David Chelimsky > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:43 AM, "Rick DeNatale" > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Rick DeNatale <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> I'm wanting to write a spec that a model is applying an :order > > >>>> option > > >>>> to a find call, but I don't want to completely specify all of the > > >>>> find > > >>>> parameters. > > >>>> > > >>>> So I want to write something like this, say in a controller spec > > >>>> > > >>>> User.should_receive(:find).with(:all, hash_with_at_least(:order => > > >>>> 'user.name ASC')) > > >>>> get 'index', :sort => 'up' > > >> > > >> I really like this idea. What about something more general that can > > >> handle the first n args too? > > > > > > That's a horse of a different color I think. It would need to dig > > > into MessageExpectation#with and/or the way ArgumentExpectations are > > > built. > > > > > > Dealing with it an argument at a time is easy since it just needs == > > > to 'do the right thing' on an argument 'proxy'. > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > I think hash_with would be clear enough and a bit more terse. Agree? > > Well that name has been bandied about for other purposes > http://www.google.com/search?q=hash_with > > Maybe options_with since I think Rails tends to call a trailing hash > argument options, or looking ahead to ruby 1.9, keywords_with > > These still don't really feel exactly right to me though since they > don't carry the connotation that other key/values are acceptable. > > Another alternatives, which trade off slightly less brevity for a bit > more clarity, might be hash_including > > Personally, since most folks use capable editors, I'm less concerned > with minimizing keystrokes, for example in textmate, a longer and > clearer version can be had for the cost of an esc key or a snippet. > <G>
Am I the only one that hates this whole thing and thinks it ought to be User.should_receive(:all_sorted_by_name) ? Pat _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
