On 3 Aug 2010, at 12:50 PM, David Chelimsky wrote: > Pushed: > > http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/commit/84303616be1ac2f8126675488947b47f6945cebe > http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/commit/3cea7b8bea51766d632e20bcc9ef15c64b719ea1
Awesomeness! > Please do let me know if this works with what you've got. In general, yes, this is a massive improvement! I've realised some things that never occurred to me before, though. Maybe you have some thoughts... I've put everything on a Gist[1] (which needs a few tweaks here and there, but I think it's a reasonably example). Notes: * DomainLib is my holding module for everything I've extracted out of the project source. Anything inside that is generic, analogous to eg ActiveRecord (eg Entity <-> AR::Base) * I've only pasted the specs, and only the contract-based ones at that (the implementation is not very interesting, nor is the interaction spec). * I don't like the word contract any more, at least not here. It needs a better name, probably something that would fit if you wrote a similar spec for ActiveRecord's has_many. Some things I ran into: First, I found that you can't use the block variables in local helper methods. Because Ruby methods aren't closures, I've had to replace methods like: def entity_dot_new_collection_member(*args) entity.send(:"new_#{item_name}", *args) end with: define_method :entity_dot_new_collection_member do |*args| entity.send(:"new_#{item_name}", *args) end Not a big deal, but it's not as readable as it was before. (Not that it was exactly large-print Winnie the Pooh to start with, given the abstract nature of the shared examples.) Second, you can't refer to `described_class` in the descriptions. I don't know why I though you'd be able to, but it would be nice if it worked :) (You can see the place where my failed attempt was, where I left <described_class>.) Finally, I realised something when I added another example. I should say though, that all this time, I was only using the shared examples with one collection on the entity, and I added another a few minutes ago just for fun, and it just worked... I like :) But it raised a point about things that are common to all shared examples, and parameters to individual uses. In my example case, `entity_class` and `entity` are relevant to both of the "collection" shared example groups, but `collection_name`, `item_name`, `class_name` are parameters to the shared examples individually. With the current setup, there's no way to require that a host group provides eg `entity_class`. And also, if it's defined as a `let` in the host, you can't use it in the descriptions in the shared example group (which you couldn't before, of course). So I think this solves 90% of the problems I had before, and is certainly a workable solution to the specs I'm trying to write. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the rest though. > The issue of the evaluation order is still up for grabs, but this now > supports params to shared groups in Ruby >= 1.8.7. Well, I deliberately didn't check what order you ended up using! Whatever it is works for me now, although I guess future experiments could change that... Cheers! Ash [1] http://gist.github.com/507140 -- 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