Hi David I think this was a case of idiot-end-user (or developer) on my part, sorry about that.
I've produced a simple example here (and figured out what I was doing wrong). http://gist.github.com/501296 I don't think anything needs to change, though a wrapper function (each + an inner describe) might help flag it as a possible pitfall. Thanks, Nick On Jul 29, 1:22 am, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 2010, at 5:42 PM, nruth wrote: > > > > > > > Please correct me if this is fixed in Rspec 2, but in Rspec 1 I have > > hit upon the following problem (at least thrice, this time it costing > > me several hours), code is the best example: > > > I have a practice examination system where each record is one of > > several "subtests" (think tagging rather than subclassing) which is > > part of a constant string array. I want to test each's behaviour > > indepently in my specs (since an earlier implementation used STI > > rather than tagging, and I want to test each kind of test follows the > > spec) > > > My specs use this approach in parts: > > > describe "#add_question_set_of_type" do > > MyModule::SUBTESTS.each do |subtest| > > > describe %Q("#{subtest}") do > > … specs using subtest > > end > > end > > > where SUBTESTS is a constant array of strings. > > > the problem is doing this breaks any blocks that look like > > Where are these blocks, in the outer or inner example group? Please provide a > complete example, including everything I need to run and see the output > you're seeing. > > Thx > > > > > > > > > let(:subtest) {MyModule.subtest_to_sym(subtest)} > > > or > > > before(:each) do > > �...@subtest = MyModule.subtest_to_sym(subtest) > > end > > > Instead I have to avoid the @ or let examples, and use the more > > explicit (verbose): > > > MyModule.subtest_to_sym(subtest) > > > using the let or before @ approaches both fail. > > > Using puts within the code (for debugging purposes) I found that the > > specs were only being exposed to the final value of the array, while I > > expected (and have seen, or at least assumed from past passes) that > > all 4 (or so) of the strings were being used to create unique methods > > on the example group (one per iteration). > > > Is this something that should be: > > > a. avoided, because it's crazy, and written differently > > b, documented > > c. investigated further > > > I can provide a more complete example if helpful? > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > _______________________________________________ > > rspec-users mailing list > > rspec-us...@rubyforge.org > >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-us...@rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
