I think what is easiest/cleanest in the code should prevail :) I personally like "shared_examples_for", but can easily adapt to whatever decision is made.
On a semi-related note. Where do I require my shared specs so it_should_behave_like can find my shared example groups? Is there any convention for this? Cheers, Mike. On Mar 7, 5:43 am, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Nick Hoffman <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote: > > Pat Maddox wrote: > >> describe "something something", :shared => true do > >> ... > >> end > > >> describe "chunky bacon" do > >> it_should_behave_like "something something" > >> end > > > BTW, is rspec.info supposed to be up-to-date? It still recommends using > > "shared_examples_for". > > >http://rspec.info/documentation/ > > So this presents an interesting problem :) > > My intent some time back was to deprecate :shared => true, not > share_examples_for (which is aliased with shared_examples_for). Based > on that, the rspec.info site is correct and Pat is incorrect. However, > Pat didn't know that because I never communicated it in any other way > besides documenting the method on the site. > > Now as we're introducing rspec-2 to the mix, option hashes passed to > describe and it will become much more common. On the grounds that it > would simplify the API, it seems to me it might make more sense in > rspec-2 to use :shared => true and get rid of these methods. > > Thoughts? > > David > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-us...@rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
