List,
Given a Cucumber script like
Then /^the (?:(first|second|third|fourth) line of the )?(.*) section of the (.*)
should be (.*)$/ do |*args|
#...
end
Cucumber errors with
expected 0 block argument(s), got 4 (Cucumber::ArityMismatchError)
While it''s perfectly legal in generic ruby to do this
def foo(&block)
block.call 1,2,3,4,5
end
foo do |*args|
#...
End
Is this an intended limitation? I can work around it, but I''ll end up
with 2 different ''Then'' calls that do nothing but call a
common method
--
Tim Hart
Senior Software Engineer
PICA Group
615-713-9956 :cell
timothyjhart :Y!
tjhart at me.com :AIM
*****************************************************************************
Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain information that is Confidential
or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and
entity named in the message. If you are not an intended recipient of this
message, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from your
computer. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message and do not disclose
its contents or take any action in reliance on the information it contains.
*****************************************************************************
aslak hellesoy
2009-Mar-30 21:37 UTC
[rspec-users] Variable argument matchers for Cucumber
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Tim Hart <THart at picagroup.com> wrote:> List, > > Given a Cucumber script like > > Then /^the (?:(first|second|third|fourth) line of the )?(.*) section of the > (.*) should be (.*)$/ do |*args| > #... > end > > Cucumber errors with > expected 0 block argument(s), got 4 (Cucumber::ArityMismatchError) > > While it''s perfectly legal in generic ruby to do this > > def foo(&block) > block.call 1,2,3,4,5 > end > > foo do |*args| > #... > End > > Is this an intended limitation? I can work around it, but I''ll end up with > 2 different ''Then'' calls that do nothing but call a common methodIt''s intended. Let me explain with an example: http://gist.github.com/87890 Ruby 1.8 doesn''t know how to distinguish between a Proc with no args (and no pipes) and a Proc with varargs. They both have arity -1. This means Cucumber (while running on Ruby 1.8) can''t really tell whether you forgot to define any args or if you''re deliberately using varargs. Since the first case is more likely than the second, this is what Cucumber assumes. I don''t want to sacrifice this aide just so people can use varargs. The benefit of getting help when you forget to define prog args outweighs the drawback of not being able to use varargs. That said, I''d like to make Cucumber smart enough to accept varargs on Ruby 1.9. Does this sound like an OK compromise? Aslak> > -- > Tim Hart > Senior Software Engineer > PICA Group > 615-713-9956 :cell > timothyjhart :Y! > tjhart at me.com :AIM > > > ***************************************************************************** > > Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain information that is > Confidential or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the > individual(s) and entity named in the message. If you are not an intended > recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete > the material from your computer. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this > message and do not disclose its contents or take any action in reliance on > the information it contains. > > > ***************************************************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090330/e5137fe1/attachment-0001.html>
aslak hellesoy
2009-Mar-30 22:59 UTC
[rspec-users] Variable argument matchers for Cucumber
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:37 PM, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com>wrote:> > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Tim Hart <THart at picagroup.com> wrote: > >> List, >> >> Given a Cucumber script like >> >> Then /^the (?:(first|second|third|fourth) line of the )?(.*) section of >> the (.*) should be (.*)$/ do |*args| >> #... >> end >> >> Cucumber errors with >> expected 0 block argument(s), got 4 (Cucumber::ArityMismatchError) >> >> While it''s perfectly legal in generic ruby to do this >> >> def foo(&block) >> block.call 1,2,3,4,5 >> end >> >> foo do |*args| >> #... >> End >> >> Is this an intended limitation? I can work around it, but I''ll end up with >> 2 different ''Then'' calls that do nothing but call a common method > > > It''s intended. Let me explain with an example: > > http://gist.github.com/87890 > > Ruby 1.8 doesn''t know how to distinguish between a Proc with no args (and > no pipes) and a Proc with varargs. They both have arity -1. This means > Cucumber (while running on Ruby 1.8) can''t really tell whether you forgot to > define any args or if you''re deliberately using varargs. Since the first > case is more likely than the second, this is what Cucumber assumes. > > I don''t want to sacrifice this aide just so people can use varargs. The > benefit of getting help when you forget to define prog args outweighs the > drawback of not being able to use varargs. > > That said, I''d like to make Cucumber smart enough to accept varargs on Ruby > 1.9. > > Does this sound like an OK compromise? >You can use varargs now, but only on Ruby 1.9 http://github.com/aslakhellesoy/cucumber/commit/e58e1ed376b06204d48c52371b16f657630cd6ac Aslak> > Aslak > > >> >> -- >> Tim Hart >> Senior Software Engineer >> PICA Group >> 615-713-9956 :cell >> timothyjhart :Y! >> tjhart at me.com :AIM >> >> >> ***************************************************************************** >> >> Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain information that is >> Confidential or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the >> individual(s) and entity named in the message. If you are not an intended >> recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete >> the material from your computer. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this >> message and do not disclose its contents or take any action in reliance on >> the information it contains. >> >> >> ***************************************************************************** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20090331/6f7fc9a1/attachment.html>
Howdy, Just an observation, hope it''s helpful...>> I can work around it, but I''ll end up with 2 different ''Then'' calls that do nothing but call a common methodNot sure this is necessary. If you provide all the arguments in the one step then you can test them for value ( blank?) in the one method. -- Tim 2 2009/3/30 aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com>:> > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Tim Hart <THart at picagroup.com> wrote: >> >> List, >> >> Given a Cucumber script like >> >> Then /^the (?:(first|second|third|fourth) line of the )?(.*) section of >> the (.*) should be (.*)$/ do |*args| >> ? ?#... >> end >> >> Cucumber errors with >> expected 0 block argument(s), got 4 (Cucumber::ArityMismatchError) >> >> While it''s perfectly legal in generic ruby to do this >> >> def foo(&block) >> ?block.call 1,2,3,4,5 >> end >> >> foo do |*args| >> ?#... >> End >> >> Is this an intended limitation? I can work around it, but I''ll end up with >> 2 different ''Then'' calls that do nothing but call a common method > > It''s intended. Let me explain with an example: > > http://gist.github.com/87890 > > Ruby 1.8 doesn''t know how to distinguish between a Proc with no args (and no > pipes) and a Proc with varargs. They both have arity -1. This means Cucumber > (while running on Ruby 1.8) can''t really tell whether you forgot to define > any args or if you''re deliberately using varargs. Since the first case is > more likely than the second, this is what Cucumber assumes. > > I don''t want to sacrifice this aide just so people can use varargs. The > benefit of getting help when you forget to define prog args outweighs the > drawback of not being able to use varargs. > > That said, I''d like to make Cucumber smart enough to accept varargs on Ruby > 1.9. > > Does this sound like an OK compromise? > > Aslak > >> >> -- >> Tim Hart >> Senior Software Engineer >> PICA Group >> 615-713-9956 :cell >> timothyjhart :Y! >> tjhart at me.com :AIM >> >> >> ***************************************************************************** >> >> Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain information that is >> Confidential or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the >> individual(s) and entity named in the message. If you are not an intended >> recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete >> the material from your computer. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this >> message and do not disclose its contents or take any action in reliance on >> the information it contains. >> >> >> ***************************************************************************** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >