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
