[rspec-devel] this library needs a better name

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Sun May 3 13:57:09 EDT 2009


On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 12:54 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 12:40 PM, aslak hellesoy
> <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Mark Wilden <mark at mwilden.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:12 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The basic idea is that you use the stubble method to define a family
>>>> of stubs on a model class and the instance it returns for new(),
>>>> find(), create(), and create!(). There's a bit more than that, but
>>>> it's an infant right now, and there are certainly going to be holes in
>>>> it, but the biggest hole at the moment is its name :)
>>>
>>> Since the library is for stubbing models, I actually like the name
>>> stubble.
>>
>> Why not include it in rspec-rails?
>
> I may eventually, but I want to prove it out for a bit before adding
> it to the mile long list of shit that I have to maintain in rspec
> rails to maintain compatibility.

Also, a bigger problem than the lib name is the method. This doesn't
speak to me:

stubble(MyModel)

It needs to say "take control of this model class and provide
instances that are savable (or not) for find, new, create, and
create!" - all of that in one word.

Was chatting w/ imajes (James Cox) last night and I mentioned the word
stage, at which point we came up variations of this:

stage(Model).as :savable do |model|
  # access to the one and only model instance
end

Thoughts?


>
>>
>> Aslak
>>
>>>
>>> ///ark
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-devel mailing list
>>> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-devel mailing list
>> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>>
>


More information about the rspec-devel mailing list