On Mar 5, 2008, at 6:22 PM, "Rick DeNatale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/5/08, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mar 5, 2008, at 2:57 PM, "Rick DeNatale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:31 PM, David Chelimsky >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:43 AM, "Rick DeNatale" >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Rick DeNatale <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I'm wanting to write a spec that a model is applying an :order >>>>>> option >>>>>> to a find call, but I don't want to completely specify all of the >>>>>> find >>>>>> parameters. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I want to write something like this, say in a controller spec >>>>>> >>>>>> User.should_receive(:find).with(:all, hash_with_at_least(:order >>>>>> => >>>>>> 'user.name ASC')) >>>>>> get 'index', :sort => 'up' >>>> >>>> I really like this idea. What about something more general that can >>>> handle the first n args too? >>> >>> That's a horse of a different color I think. It would need to dig >>> into MessageExpectation#with and/or the way ArgumentExpectations are >>> built. >>> >>> Dealing with it an argument at a time is easy since it just needs == >>> to 'do the right thing' on an argument 'proxy'. >> >> >> Agreed. >> >> I think hash_with would be clear enough and a bit more terse. Agree? > > Well that name has been bandied about for other purposes > http://www.google.com/search?q=hash_with > > Maybe options_with since I think Rails tends to call a trailing hash > argument options, or looking ahead to ruby 1.9, keywords_with > > These still don't really feel exactly right to me though since they > don't carry the connotation that other key/values are acceptable. > > Another alternatives, which trade off slightly less brevity for a bit > more clarity, might be hash_including > I like that. Have at it. Cheers, David > Personally, since most folks use capable editors, I'm less concerned > with minimizing keystrokes, for example in textmate, a longer and > clearer version can be had for the cost of an esc key or a snippet. > <G> > > -- > Rick DeNatale > > My blog on Ruby > http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
