On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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(¯o_block) > Spec::Example::ExampleGroupMethods.extend Module.new(¯o_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.) >
I like David's suggestion and I also like Ben's suggestion on top of it. +1 to both. -- 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
