This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 30, 2024. It is now read-only.
Fix caller filter to ignore rubygems #64
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
|
|
||
| $_caller_filter = nil | ||
|
|
||
| expect { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the one place I prefer curlies for multiple lines...because "do" and "end" are english words I think it's odd to have them in the middle of an expect { }.to matcher expression. The curlies, as punctuation, don't have that problem.
Funny to see that are preferences as a team are all over the map on this :).
|
I'm on board with this, makes sense to me. |
myronmarston
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 13, 2014
Fix caller filter to ignore rubygems
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This fixed rspec/rspec-core#1524.
I debated whether or not we should add code here to ignore rubygems but ultimately decided it was easier then auditing every
RSpec.deprecatecall to see if it could be triggered by a userrequirestatement, so while this doesn't quite align with thefirst_non_rspec_line(since rubygems is non-rspec) it solves the problem and serves the purpose for which we created the caller filter.Thoughts?
/cc @JonRowe @xaviershay