On Jul 30, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Ashley Moran wrote:
>
> 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.
By all means.
> Regards
> Ash
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
