[rspec-users] Is share_examples_for deprecated?

emdub eddanger at gmail.com
Mon Mar 15 13:50:03 EDT 2010


I think what is easiest/cleanest in the code should prevail :) I
personally like "shared_examples_for", but can easily adapt to
whatever decision is made.

On a semi-related note. Where do I require my shared specs so
it_should_behave_like can find my shared example groups? Is there any
convention for this?

Cheers,

Mike.

On Mar 7, 5:43 am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Nick Hoffman <li... at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> > Pat Maddox wrote:
> >> describe "something something", :shared => true do
> >>   ...
> >> end
>
> >> describe "chunky bacon" do
> >>   it_should_behave_like "something something"
> >> end
>
> > BTW, is rspec.info supposed to be up-to-date? It still recommends using
> > "shared_examples_for".
>
> >http://rspec.info/documentation/
>
> So this presents an interesting problem :)
>
> My intent some time back was to deprecate :shared => true, not
> share_examples_for (which is aliased with shared_examples_for). Based
> on that, the rspec.info site is correct and Pat is incorrect. However,
> Pat didn't know that because I never communicated it in any other way
> besides documenting the method on the site.
>
> Now as we're introducing rspec-2 to the mix, option hashes passed to
> describe and it will become much more common. On the grounds that it
> would simplify the API, it seems to me it might make more sense in
> rspec-2 to use :shared => true and get rid of these methods.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


More information about the rspec-users mailing list