Consistent definitions for respond_to? #533
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Although this is a unit test, I think it's a bit simpler to rely on the built-in implementation of Object#respond_to? rather than redefining that method in some of these tests. Also the real implementation of Object#respond_to? accepts an optional 2nd argument. We could change the relevant tests to allow such an argument in the redefined versions of the method in these tests. However, this doesn't work in Ruby v1.8.6, because blocks can't have default values for arguments. The new approach means that this is a non-issue.
As far as I can see, Object#respond_to? has supported an optional 2nd argument since at least Ruby v1.8.6 and perhaps forever. The only thing thing that changed was that in Ruby v2 onwards the optional 2nd argument changed its name from include_private to include_all. I'm not sure whether this was just a clarification about the behaviour for protected methods or whether prior to v2 protected methods were never checked. In any case, it seems to make sense to assume that a respond_to? method always supports an optional 2nd argument and avoid the arity check in Mock#respond_to_missing?. My suspicion is that this check was only added to avoid having to fix some tests in MockTest which I've since resolved in an earlier commit.
This method delegates respond_to_missing? behaviour to the responder object. As far as I can see Object#respond_to_missing? has required the 2nd argument since it was introduced in Ruby v1.9.2. So it's more consistent for Mock#respond_to_missing? to do the same.
The argument name used for Object#respond_to? in earlier Ruby versions is include_private and so it's clearer to use that everywhere.
With Object#respond_to? which supports an optional 2nd argument called include_private.
Since Ruby v2, the 2nd optional argument to Object#respond_to? has been named include_all. Since we're likely to drop support for pre-v2 versions of Ruby in the not too distant future, I think making this change should make things clearer.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.