tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2813261110497121234.post7870556691731764905..comments2007-07-05T19:25:11.811-07:00Shane Harviehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01016971334424471677noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2813261110497121234.post-57790406017523244422007-07-05T19:25:00.000-07:002007-07-05T19:25:00.000-07:00This is a good idea, we have been doing it with all of our RSpec suites since we saw the Luke RedPath article http://www.lukeredpath.co.uk/2006/8/29/developing-a-rails-model-using-bdd-and-rspec-part-1<BR/><BR/>It really does clean things up.spicycodehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14123022464488294831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2813261110497121234.post-78184434145388021942007-03-07T09:30:00.000-08:002007-03-07T09:30:00.000-08:00Nice job Shane - Joe Poon and I just used it.<BR/><BR/>We miss you!Jake Scruggshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274380203959781950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2813261110497121234.post-2305183922537261962007-02-19T16:04:00.000-08:002007-02-19T16:04:00.000-08:00This appears to be a derivative of the 'Object Mother pattern' (I think it's a bad name, I prefer "object creator") <BR/>http://www.thoughtworks.com/object-mother-easing-test-object-creation.pdf.<BR/><BR/>The Ruby syntax makes the code nice and concise, though.Garretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13866333628476629355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2813261110497121234.post-64571188369593820192007-02-18T22:55:00.000-08:002007-02-18T22:55:00.000-08:00It's often baffled me that there was no compliment to merge()/merge!()--that I could find--in the standard libraries.<BR/><BR/>I'd thought of except() but without() is nice.Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10823088714559454377noreply@blogger.com