-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 154
Feature: Handle symbol-to-proc wrappers (&:) that refer to a method created using delegation or method missing
#406
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
marcrohloff
wants to merge
3
commits into
ruby-grape:master
Choose a base branch
from
marcrohloff:feature/support-ampersand-blocks-for-delegated-methods
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+206
−6
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rather than adding
method_missingdirectly toSomeObject, could you extract the new fixtures into subclasses? That way the shared class stays clean and the existing tests (especially the "undefined method" one) don't depend on yourrespond_to_missing? being correct to pass.
Something like:
and specs kind of:
with the regression case that pins the boundary:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@numbata
I decided to add some more specs to test the negative cases. Something like the others tests. i..e
Getting the value of the first
exposegives the expected exception message. But the second results inwrong number of arguments (given 0, expected 1)because it is processed through the delegatorDo you think that the second message should match the first message?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good question! My short subjective answer is: no, they don't need to match for this PR.
The
ensure_block_arity!only guards the&:symbolpath — theas:alias goes through different machinery and its error message is a separate concern. Aligning the two would be a worthwhile follow-up, but let's not expand scope here.For the context:
as:bypassesensure_block_arity!not by skipping it directly, but because it never produces aprocat all, so the exposure type isDelegatorExposure(plain attribute delegation) rather thanBlockExposure. Two completely different code paths.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I made the suggested changes and added several tests to verify that
ArgumentErrorwas raised when expected