[rspec-users] Missing method implementation_backtrace

Andreas Wolff rubyphunk at googlemail.com
Fri Nov 21 18:05:42 EST 2008


On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:28 PM, aslak hellesoy
<aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> 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 doesn't get
> part of the API docs).
>
> WDYT?

Wouldn't it be better to have a kind of standalone api. An interface
where the internal implementation can be changed but the public one
stays (mostly) consistent over different releases? IMO going this way,
the rspec-development would be more aware of changes to that API.

lg // andreas


> 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