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?
Thanks!
Ben Fyvie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20081120/b757b26d/attachment.html>
David Chelimsky
2008-Nov-20 19:35 UTC
[rspec-users] Missing method implementation_backtrace
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Ben Fyvie <ben.fyvie 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. FWIW, David> > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Ben Fyvie > > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
On Nov 20, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Ben Fyvie <ben.fyvie 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
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? 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
David Chelimsky
2008-Nov-21 03:20 UTC
[rspec-users] Missing method implementation_backtrace
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. 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 >
David Chelimsky
2008-Nov-21 03:52 UTC
[rspec-users] Missing method implementation_backtrace
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:20 PM, 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.Actually - I see that this change from implementation_backtrace to example_backtrace was after the 1.1.11 release (the OP said this was upgrading to 1.1.11, but it must have been upgrading to the current code in git). I''m still going to go ahead w/ this plan (rename to backtrace and reinstate a deprecated implementation_backtrace before the next release), but I just want to alleviate concern of anybody who might be concerned that the current release doesn''t play nice w/ NetBeans (at least for this reason) Cheers, David> > 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 >> >
aslak hellesoy
2008-Nov-21 13:28 UTC
[rspec-users] Missing method implementation_backtrace
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? 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 >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20081121/92c75c1b/attachment.html>
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? > > AslakWouldn''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>> 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 >
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?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> 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 >
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, 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).I think that would clarify the API *and* make the RDoc easier to read. :) Peter
David Chelimsky
2008-Nov-23 11:16 UTC
[rspec-users] Missing method implementation_backtrace
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?> > 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 >
David Chelimsky
2008-Nov-23 11:17 UTC
[rspec-users] Missing method implementation_backtrace
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:16 AM, 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?PS - I did add rdoc for the #backtrace methods in both ExampleGroupMethods and ExampleMethods, as well as their deprecated counterparts.> >> >> 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 >> >
David Chelimsky
2008-Nov-24 15:51 UTC
[rspec-users] Missing method implementation_backtrace
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 // andreasCan 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 >
aslak hellesoy
2008-Nov-24 15:53 UTC
[rspec-users] Missing method implementation_backtrace
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>