Why the word 'define' is chosen to create a project?
The word 'define' makes me thinking I'm creating a ruby method, rather than
a project, because it's too close to ruby keyword 'def'. Even if 'def' is
not a ruby keyword, 'define' really means define anything, much more than
just a project.
And
project is used too - it's a method returning the current project.
define comes from Rake.
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 01:33, redstun wrote:
> Why the word 'define' is chosen to create a project?
>
> The word 'define' makes me thinking I'm creating a ruby method, rather than
> a project, because it
The project method could be overloaded to not only return a project but also
define a project if a block is given, e.g.,
project :foo # => returns the project named :foo if it exists
project :foo do
... # define the project
end
I feel it would be consistent with many of Rake's task constructo
I haven't followed up with Jim after the conference unfortunately but I
would love indeed to help get it a bit more flexible.
OK with project do ... end but I am afraid of confusing people and making
Buildr look even more magic.
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:04, Alex Boisvert wrote:
> The project m
I do use JTestR with Buildr for my current employer's build system. We have
RSpec / JRuby tests mixed with JUnit4 tests in projects, and JTestR is the only
test framework I am aware of that can run all tests together, given that only
one test framework can be activated per project AFAIK.
I am
Good to hear somebody's using our JtestR integration :)
I think there's two ways to make it work,
1) Upgrade JtestR to RSpec2, this way we have aligned dependencies and our
integration code can work with both RSpec directly and JtestR.
2) Keep JtestR where it is and use different integration cod
> Although 'define' cannot be dropped, can we just allow the word 'project' be
> used to create a project by something like method alias?
In several of the projects that I work on I create method at the top
that defines a project with a bunch of defaults. It usually looks
something like the follow
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Alex Boisvert wrote:
> The project method could be overloaded to not only return a project but also
> define a project if a block is given, e.g.,
>
> project :foo # => returns the project named :foo if it exists
>
> project :foo do
> ... # define the project
> en
Ok, all my changes with respect to rspec 2.1.0 are committed. And the
JtestR specs are all red right now.
I'll work on a strawman JtestR 0.6.0 integration later this week, taking
approach #2 below. If that doesn't work, we'll need to push the upgrade to
RSpec2.
alex
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11
