Also, a nice thing about RSpec is that when you do describe an actual object, ie: "describe Foo", you can determine this by asking the example group what it's described type is.
This makes things a lot simpler and cleaner than having to hack away strings, or guess based on the name of your test. Zach On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Andy Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Are you willing to provide a simple example? > > I'm using the same example as the articled you linked to originally as > the base. This way you should be able to clearly see the differences. > > http://gist.github.com/13804 > > Zach > >> >> Andy >> >> Matt Wynne wrote: >>> We do something similar to this, though we use a convention to set >>> @klass to the class being spec'd in the top-level example group, >>> rather than deriving it as they do in that sample. >>> >>> In view specs we also use a convention to always have a do_render >>> method available, so that we can bring in similarly shared / generated >>> examples. >>> >>> It's great for speccing two sublcasses which have some common >>> behaviour, where it feels wrong to spec the (abstract) base class. >> >> -- >> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. >> _______________________________________________ >> rspec-users mailing list >> rspec-users@rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >> > > > > -- > Zach Dennis > http://www.continuousthinking.com > http://www.mutuallyhuman.com > -- Zach Dennis http://www.continuousthinking.com http://www.mutuallyhuman.com _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
