[rspec-users] Missing method implementation_backtrace

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Mon Nov 24 10:51:31 EST 2008


On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Andreas Wolff <treas at dynamicdudes.com> wrote:
> 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?
>>
>> Aslak
>
> 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

Can you elaborate? What would make an api "standalone" in this context?

>
>
>
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


More information about the rspec-users mailing list