On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:16 PM, 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, rubyphun
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Andreas Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:28 PM, aslak hellesoy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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 doe
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 <[EMA
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, aslak hellesoy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 d
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:28 PM, aslak hellesoy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 do
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:28 PM, aslak hellesoy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 do
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.
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 passin
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:20 PM, 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 exam
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 th
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?
lg // andreas
On 20 Nov., 20:37, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2008, at 2
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
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("cal
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
14 matches
Mail list logo