On Aug 08, 2010, at 2:17 am, Phillip Koebbe wrote:
> I have developed a system in which I require model_helper.rb in model specs,
> controller_helper.rb in controllers, and (you guessed it!) view_helper.rb in
> view specs. Each of those then require spec_helper.rb. I did this because I
> wanted fine-grained control over what gets loaded when, which started when I
> decided I wanted to use Remarkable for model specs only and didn't want it
> available during other specs. Plus, I keep customizations out of
> spec_helper.rb, which is a very good thing.
I think the way I worded by question may have made it sound like I was
expecting everyone using TextMate to use put "require 'spec_helper'" at the top
of the file... I didn't mean that! I was just suggesting that if a file starts
with that require, then TextMate should see it as an RSpec file. As you've
pointed out, this won't get all files, like your custom helpers. But I imagine
it'd get a fairly high proportion.
> This is probably like trying to swat a fly with Mack truck, but what if all
> files under spec/ were considered RSpec files? Or possibly some variation of
> that?
I just double checked, and spec_helper.rb isn't considered an RSpec file - and
actually, I don't think it should be. Also, I have a spec/support folder in
most projects, with matchers etc. They aren't RSpec files either. So this
route would probably give a lot of false positives.
It might work better if this was the default folder structure:
spec/
examples/
spec_helper.rb
support/
Then you could glob everything under "examples". I actually do this with
Cucumber, where my folder structure is:
features/
descriptions/
step_definitions/
support/
But apparently I'm alone in the world not wanting to mix .feature files in with
the support folder!
Either way, I'm not convinced using the folder structure is the best solution.
It forces TextMate users to structure there project a certain way. If you
wanted a rails app like this:
acceptance/
app/
integration/
spec/
(or whatever) then path matching wouldn't work.
On Aug 07, 2010, at 11:44 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
> I think it's good to do things that help end users, but we'd need a more
> reliable convention to base this on. Anybody (including Ashley) got any other
> suggestions?
Actually, I'm stuck :-/ I didn't think it'd be hard to identify RSpec example
group files! I'm not much of a TextMate developer though. Anyone else got
ideas?
Cheers
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
