Is share_examples_for deprecated?

API Dock says that “share_examples_for” is deprecated. If that’s
correct, what should we be using instead?

http://apidock.com/rspec/Spec/Extensions/Main/share_examples_for

Thanks,
Nick

describe “something something”, :shared => true do

end

describe “chunky bacon” do
it_should_behave_like “something something”
end

Pat M. wrote:

describe “something something”, :shared => true do

end

describe “chunky bacon” do
it_should_behave_like “something something”
end

Thanks, mate.

Pat M. wrote:

describe “something something”, :shared => true do

end

describe “chunky bacon” do
it_should_behave_like “something something”
end

BTW, is rspec.info supposed to be up-to-date? It still recommends using
“shared_examples_for”.

http://rspec.info/documentation/

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Nick H. [email protected]
wrote:

“shared_examples_for”.

http://rspec.info/documentation/

So this presents an interesting problem :slight_smile:

My intent some time back was to deprecate :shared => true, not
share_examples_for (which is aliased with shared_examples_for). Based
on that, the rspec.info site is correct and Pat is incorrect. However,
Pat didn’t know that because I never communicated it in any other way
besides documenting the method on the site.

Now as we’re introducing rspec-2 to the mix, option hashes passed to
describe and it will become much more common. On the grounds that it
would simplify the API, it seems to me it might make more sense in
rspec-2 to use :shared => true and get rid of these methods.

Thoughts?

David

David C. wrote:

So this presents an interesting problem :slight_smile:

My intent some time back was to deprecate :shared => true, not
share_examples_for (which is aliased with shared_examples_for). Based
on that, the rspec.info site is correct and Pat is incorrect. However,
Pat didn’t know that because I never communicated it in any other way
besides documenting the method on the site.

Now as we’re introducing rspec-2 to the mix, option hashes passed to
describe and it will become much more common. On the grounds that it
would simplify the API, it seems to me it might make more sense in
rspec-2 to use :shared => true and get rid of these methods.

Thoughts?

David

I’m a fan of “shared_examples_for”, because it’s beautifully descriptive
of what the purpose of its block is: sharing its examples with other
example groups.

Passing “:shared => true” to a “describe” is less obvious to me, simply
because it doesn’t stand out. This is especially true when “:shared =>
true” is at the end of a long string. Eg: http://pastie.org/858196

Cheers,
Nick

emdub wrote:

I think what is easiest/cleanest in the code should prevail :slight_smile: I
personally like “shared_examples_for”, but can easily adapt to
whatever decision is made.

On a semi-related note. Where do I require my shared specs so
it_should_behave_like can find my shared example groups? Is there any
convention for this?

Cheers,

Mike.

Here you go, mate:
http://pastie.org/870928

I think what is easiest/cleanest in the code should prevail :slight_smile: I
personally like “shared_examples_for”, but can easily adapt to
whatever decision is made.

On a semi-related note. Where do I require my shared specs so
it_should_behave_like can find my shared example groups? Is there any
convention for this?

Cheers,

Mike.

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs