On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:47 PM, rubyphunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> same problem here. I always used "example.implementation_backtrace" in
> a custom formatter to find out to which spec file a passing example
> belongs to.
> Is there another way to get the file path?
Looking through the code I see the name was changed to
example_backtrace, and I can see why it was changed to that. In fact,
looking closer I really think it should just be backtrace.
I'm going to change it to #backtrace, rdoc it up to formalize its
place in the world as an API method, and, in the interest of playing
nice w/ NetBeans, reinstate a deprecated implementation_backtrace that
delegates to backtrace.
Rubyphunk, what you can do in the short run is alias
implementation_backtrace, example_backtrace, but you'll have to change
that for the next release. Sorry about the churn, but this was really
not a formally public method to begin with. Now we will make it so.
Cheers,
David
>
>
> lg // andreas
>
>
> On 20 Nov., 20:37, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Ben Fyvie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > wrote:
>> >> We just upgraded from rspec version 1.1.4 to rspec version 1.1.11
>> >> and found
>> >> that this no longer exists:
>>
>> >> # File lib/spec/example/example_methods.rb, line 84
>>
>> >> def implementation_backtrace
>>
>> >> eval("caller", @_implementation)
>>
>> >> end
>>
>> >> I don't really know what this method is for and don't really care
>> >> that it is
>> >> gone; however, Netbeans 6.5 does care that it is gone and is not
>> >> able to run
>> >> tests without it. As a temporary band-aid I have added the method
>> >> back
>> >> locally. I was wondering if someone could enlighten me as to why
>> >> the method
>> >> was removed?
>>
>> > Unfortunately we don't yet have a formal API for tool vendors to use,
>> > so NetBeans apparently used a method that we view as internal and it
>> > got moved or renamed during a refactoring.
>>
>> > This is something we plan to address over the coming months:
>> > formalizing an API for extension and tool use.
>>
>> Also, check out this:
>>
>> http://metaclass.org/2008/6/7/calling-in-the-dark
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> 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
