Re: [rspec-users] Shoulda
It is a bit ugly but here is an initial port of the Shoulda ActiveRecord macros: http://gist.github.com/14050 I did not try running ALL of the macros, but most of them. Before going too far with it, I would appreciate some recommendations as to how to improve the flow. The Shoulda version has a different feel to it since the assertions cause the code to die early. Whereas the RSpec conversion I did mostly wrap each should call in its own it block. Thanks for the help! I learned a lot from this exercise! Andy David Chelimsky wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Ben Mabey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This makes things a lot simpler and cleaner than having to hack away Here's a variation on that with a helper for defining macros that I'm I like it. For rspec-rails it would also be nice to be able to say: Also, instead of yielding within another block you can simply pass in the given block as an arg: def define_macros(macro_block) Spec::Example::ExampleGroupMethods.extend Module.new(macro_block) end Close but not quite. Here are two similar examples that work: def define_macros(block) Spec::Example::ExampleGroupMethods.module_eval(block) end def define_macros(block) Spec::Example::ExampleGroupMethods.extend Module.new(block.call) end I think the first is nicer if we're not too concerned with control or traceability, but the second, w/ the Module.new on a separate line, would support maintaining references to the module (if that would be useful). Cheers, David -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] Shoulda
I updated the gist posting. All of the macros should be functional now and have cleaned up describe blocks. http://gist.github.com/14050 Andy Freeman wrote: It is a bit ugly but here is an initial port of the Shoulda ActiveRecord macros: http://gist.github.com/14050 I did not try running ALL of the macros, but most of them. Before going too far with it, I would appreciate some recommendations as to how to improve the flow. The Shoulda version has a different feel to it since the assertions cause the code to die early. Whereas the RSpec conversion I did mostly wrap each should call in its own it block. Thanks for the help! I learned a lot from this exercise! Andy -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] Shoulda
Are you willing to provide a simple example? Andy Matt Wynne wrote: We do something similar to this, though we use a convention to set @klass to the class being spec'd in the top-level example group, rather than deriving it as they do in that sample. In view specs we also use a convention to always have a do_render method available, so that we can bring in similarly shared / generated examples. It's great for speccing two sublcasses which have some common behaviour, where it feels wrong to spec the (abstract) base class. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] Shoulda
What's not to like?! Despite the fact that a new RSpec version was just released, it would be nice to see a new version released right away with this concept built in so that a RSpec version of Shoulda could start rolling. :) David Chelimsky wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Zach Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Andy Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you willing to provide a simple example? I'm using the same example as the articled you linked to originally as the base. This way you should be able to clearly see the differences. http://gist.github.com/13804 Here's a variation on that with a helper for defining macros that I'm thinking of adding to rspec. Lemme know what you think: http://gist.github.com/13821 Cheers, David -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] Shoulda
I was actually teasing... :) As far as writing one... already on it! David Chelimsky wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Andy Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a variation on that with a helper for defining macros that I'm thinking of adding to rspec. Lemme know what you think: http://gist.github.com/13821 What's not to like?! Despite the fact that a new RSpec version was just released, it would be nice to see a new version released right away with this concept built in so that a RSpec version of Shoulda could start rolling. :) Not quite sure how we got from discussing an idea to release planning, but the idea of a shoulda-like library built on this is a good one. If you're planning on writing one, no need to wait for this to appear in rspec. It's 3 lines of code that you could include in such a library until such time as it is released w/ RSpec. Cheers, David -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
