On 9 Aug 2010, at 13:04, David Chelimsky wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Matt Wynne wrote: > >> >> On 9 Aug 2010, at 01:54, David Chelimsky wrote: >> >>> >>> On Aug 8, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Matt Wynne wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Aug 2010, at 16:53, David Chelimsky wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Aug 8, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Matt Wynne wrote: >>>>>> On 8 Aug 2010, at 16:38, David Chelimsky wrote: >>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:10 PM, David Chelimsky wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It turns out that if you have >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Rails (2 or 3) >>>>>>>> * Ruby-1.9 >>>>>>>> * a model named Message >>>>>>>> * let(:message) or def message in an example group >>>>>>>> * a Rails assertion in an example in that group >>>>>>>> * note that rspec-rails' matchers delegate to Rails' assertions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You'll get an error saying "wrong number of arguments (1 for 0)" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is because the rails assertion, which, when running with >>>>>>>> Ruby-1.9, delegates to Minitest::Assertions#assert_block, which >>>>>>>> delegates to a message() method that it defines. So the message() >>>>>>>> method defined by let() overrides the message() method in the >>>>>>>> Assertions module, and results in unexpected and undesirable outcomes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So - what should we do? I don't think changing Minitest is really an >>>>>>>> option, as too many assertion libraries already wrap Minitest >>>>>>>> assertions. I don't think RSpec should be in the business of >>>>>>>> monitoring methods end-users define to make sure they're not >>>>>>>> overriding pre-existing methods (what if you override a method >>>>>>>> intentionally?). The only thing I'm left with is document this >>>>>>>> particular case and hope for the best, but that feels unsatisfactory >>>>>>>> as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Recommendations? Words of wisdom? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FYI - here's the issue that spawned this thread: >>>>>>> http://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/issues/152 >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you use the Assertions module some other way than mixing it into the >>>>>> example (thereby polluting it with the Assertions module's methods?) >>>>> >>>>> I like the idea in the abstract, but most of the rails assertions rely on >>>>> some state that is local to the example (@response, @controller, >>>>> @request, etc, etc). RSpec _could_ gather up all those instance variables >>>>> and pass them into an assertion-wrapper object, but then it would be >>>>> highly coupled to that implementation and would lead us down a familiar >>>>> and unfriendly path of forcing rspec-rails releases for every rails >>>>> release. That's a world I hope to leave behind with Rails 3 :) >>>> >>>> So leave the rails assertions mixed into the example, but forward all the >>>> calls to the MiniTest::Assertions methods to some other object that has >>>> them mixed in. Won't that work? >>> >>> Here's a prototype implementation: >>> http://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/commit/0cd384536cf532435ec8f290a9c357b60872acd7 >>> >>> It's on a branch >>> (http://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/tree/assertion-delegate) because I'm >>> not convinced this is the right way to go yet, but I'd like some feedback >>> from anyone who wishes to peruse and comment. >> >> Yeah, that's what I was talking about. Couple of thoughts / questions: >> >> I'm still not clear why you need to copy the instance variable over though - >> do the rails assertions get monkey-patched into the Test::Unit::Assertions >> module then? > > No - holdover from exploratory session. > >> Also, how come there's nothing in the specs about the #message method that >> caused all this? > > Good point. > > New patch: > http://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/commit/86600313462638e7becc726e53f1bc67af108667
This is like an extremely sluggish kind of pair programming! What do you think of it now? Is it growing on you? What worries you about it? > >>> Thanks, >>> David >>> >>>>> It would also eliminate the option to use the Rails assertions directly >>>>> in examples. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, well :) >>>>> >>>>>> cheers, >>>>>> Matt >>>>>> >>>>>> http://blog.mattwynne.net >>>>>> +44(0)7974 430184 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rspec-users mailing list >>>>> rspec-users@rubyforge.org >>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> Matt >>>> >>>> http://blog.mattwynne.net >>>> +44(0)7974 430184 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rspec-users mailing list >>>> rspec-users@rubyforge.org >>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rspec-users mailing list >>> rspec-users@rubyforge.org >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >> >> cheers, >> Matt >> >> http://blog.mattwynne.net >> +44(0)7974 430184 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rspec-users mailing list >> rspec-users@rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users cheers, Matt http://blog.mattwynne.net +44(0)7974 430184 _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
