Re: [rspec-users] Shoulda

[Ben Mabey]

David Chelimsky wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
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
      

Here's a variation on that with a helper for defining macros that I'm
thinking of adding to rspec. Lemme know what you think:

http://gist.github.com/13821

Cheers,
David

  
+1
I like it.  For rspec-rails it would also be nice to be able to say:

define_macros(:for => :controller) do
...
end

define_macros(:for => :models) do
...
end
etc...

Also, instead of yielding within another block you can simply pass in 
the given block as an arg:

def define_macros(&macro_block)
 Spec::Example::ExampleGroupMethods.extend Module.new(&macro_block)
end

You probably knew this but I thought I would point it out because it 
seems that it would give you better performance. (I have not tested that 
assumption at all.)



-Ben
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users