[rspec-users] Missing method implementation_backtrace

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Sun Nov 23 06:16:01 EST 2008


On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:28 AM, aslak hellesoy
<aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:20 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:47 PM, rubyphunk <rubyphunk at googlemail.com>
>> 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?

>
> Aslak
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > lg // andreas
>> >
>> >
>> > On 20 Nov., 20:37, Scott Taylor <mailing_li... at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 20, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Ben Fyvie
>> >> > <ben.fy... at champsoftware.com
>> >> > > 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
>> >>
>> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rspec-users mailing list
>> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


More information about the rspec-users mailing list