On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:16 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:28 AM, aslak hellesoy > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:20 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> How will people know that a method is part of an API? Can we simply say that >> if it has RDoc it's part of the API and stable, and if it doesn't it's not? >> (We can still RDoc non-API code, just put :nodoc: on it so it doesn't get >> part of the API docs). >> >> WDYT? > > I think that's where we want to land. It's going to take a bit of a > going through to get there though. I think that should be part of a > 1.2 release (not necessarily the very next release) - that we put a > line in the sand as far as that is concerned. > > Another thing to consider is what the Merb team has done, where public > methods are marked with ":api: public" in the RDoc. In fact, they've > done a good job of RDoco in general, with Parameters, Returns and > Notes consistently separated. > > WDYTAT?
PS - I did add rdoc for the #backtrace methods in both ExampleGroupMethods and ExampleMethods, as well as their deprecated counterparts. > >> >> Aslak >> >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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