On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:10 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
> Maybe that, or a DSL that wraps that, is the better way, so we can get the
> best of both worlds?
>
> shared_examples_for Enumerable do
> require_instance_method :foo, "gotta have foo instance method"
> require_class_method :foo, "gotta have foo class method"
> require_instance_variable "@foo", "gotta have an instance variable named
> @foo"
> it "..." { .. }
> end
>
> Thoughts?
Actually, I *much* prefer this, as it makes it explicit what the host spec must
provide in order to have the shared behaviour. (Wincent's email has just
popped up so consider this a response to his message too.) I lean towards
making things fail as early and explicitly as possible, as it reduces the total
worldwide developer head-scratching time. InvalidSharedExampleUsageError("Must
provide instance method :foo") or some such wins for me over
NoMethodError("undefined method foo on <#Class ...>"). There should be no
_requirement_ to use this DSL though, so the key would be to make sure it
doesn't muddy the RSpec code.
This is probably something that could be solved in code quicker than debate.
It's a yak I'm happy to shave before getting back to my own project as it
impacts what I'm working on ... want me to have a look at it this evening,
David? I can fork rspec-core and play around with the idea.
Regards
Ash
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
