On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:31:37 -0700, Brian Takita wrote: > I have to confess that I did not know about facets before reading > Ashley Moran's post: > http://aviewfromafar.net/2007/10/21/quick-and-dirty-facets-in-rspec-trunk > > Not knowing about the facets solution, I made a couple of feature > requests for nested describes: > http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=14980&group_id=797&atid=3152 > http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=15088&group_id=797&atid=3152 > > Currently in trunk, Example is the base class and other examples > subclass. My proposal for the feature request is to have the > Behaviour#describe method creates a subclass of itself when passed a > block. > > The subclass then walks up its superclass chain and composes its > description from its part and the parts of its superclasses. > > So facets are being used out there. How is that working out? > > There seems to be some overlap between the facets and nested describe > block solution. > Is facets a better solution than nested describes, (i.e. more > semantically useful)? > > Implementation-wise, it seems that Example subclassing can be a > solution to implementing facets. In addition, you would get before and > after callbacks. Does that make sense for facets? > > Thanks, > Brian
Like Ashley mentions this would be great for those long controllers. Personally I prefer the semantics of "facet", but really would be fine with nested describes. I have so much redundancy in my controllers. It would be great to get rid of a lot of that. I think having before/after callbacks would be mandatory. Steve _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
