Facets and/or Nested Describes

Testing RSpec
1

I have to confess that I did not know about facets before reading
Ashley M.'s post:
http://aviewfromafar.net/2007/10/21/quick-and-dirty-facets-in-rspec-trunk

Not knowing about the facets solution, I made a couple of feature
requests for nested describes:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=14980&group_id=797&atid=3152
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=15088&group_id=797&atid=3152

Currently in trunk, Example is the base class and other examples
subclass. My proposal for the feature request is to have the
Behaviour#describe method creates a subclass of itself when passed a
block.

The subclass then walks up its superclass chain and composes its
description from its part and the parts of its superclasses.

So facets are being used out there. How is that working out?

There seems to be some overlap between the facets and nested describe
block solution.
Is facets a better solution than nested describes, (i.e. more
semantically useful)?

Implementation-wise, it seems that Example subclassing can be a
solution to implementing facets. In addition, you would get before and
after callbacks. Does that make sense for facets?

Thanks,
Brian

2

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:31:37 -0700, Brian T. wrote:

subclass. My proposal for the feature request is to have the
Is facets a better solution than nested describes, (i.e. more
semantically useful)?

Implementation-wise, it seems that Example subclassing can be a
solution to implementing facets. In addition, you would get before and
after callbacks. Does that make sense for facets?

Thanks,
Brian

Like Ashley mentions this would be great for those long controllers.
Personally I prefer the semantics of “facet”, but really would be fine
with nested describes. I have so much redundancy in my controllers. It
would be great to get rid of a lot of that. I think having before/after
callbacks would be mandatory.

Steve