[rspec-users] Missing method implementation_backtrace

aslak hellesoy aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com
Mon Nov 24 10:53:54 EST 2008


On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:16 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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?
>

I like that


>
> >
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20081124/fa699a5b/attachment.html>


More information about the rspec-users mailing list