Add a skeleton of the 3.5.0 release post. #95
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The file name should have 3-5, not 3.5 -- at least if we want to follow the pattern for all the other release posts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In fact, I had to rename the file to get middleman to serve this blog post locally. I guess it requires the dash form.
That suggests that you wrote this without seeing how it renders in middleman. That's fine, but be sure to check how it renders in your browser. I've seen plenty of cases where things did not render how you'd expect initially, and the manual check is important before we publish.
|
It's a great start, @samphippen. Nice work! Let me know when you've rename the file and then I can get started filling in some of the notable changes. @yujinakayama -- are you planning to do a Japanese translation again? |
|
|
||
| RSpec 3.5 has just been released! Given our commitment to | ||
| [semantic versioning](http://semver.org/), this should be a trivial | ||
| upgrade for anyone already using any RSpec 3 release, but if we did introduce |
|
I renamed the file and GitHub collapsed all the feedback. I'll address the rest of it tomorrow. @myronmarston do you want to add any points that you have in the mean time? |
|
I pushed my first round of updates. Will do more later. |
|
OK, I pushed some more updates. I've written up everything I had planned. Anyone want to review? As far as I know, this is ready to publish besides the stuff we'll fill in or replace on the day of release...except for one thing. The file name indicates a date of 2016-06-14, which isn't accurate. @samphippen, feel free to update that now or wait until release day. |
| @@ -0,0 +1,345 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| title: RSpec 3.5 has been released! | |||
| author: Sam Phippen | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since I wrote up a bunch of the notable changes section, should we change this to Sam Phippen and Myron Marston?
|
I've added a snippet about the new respond_to matcher stuff |
| has lacked support for placing expectations upon keyword arguments in a variety of our matchers. | ||
|
|
||
| In rspec-expectations 3.5 we add support for checking whether an object responds to a method | ||
| using keyword arguments. You'll now be able to check |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You'll now be able to check
Seems like this sentence is truncated?
| has lacked support for placing expectations upon keyword arguments in a variety of our matchers. | ||
|
|
||
| In rspec-expectations 3.5 we add support for checking whether an object responds to a method | ||
| using keyword arguments. You'll now be able to check a methods response signature for particular |
|
|
||
| ~~~ ruby | ||
| expect(my_object).to respond_to(:find).with_keywords(:limit, :offset) } | ||
| expect(my_object).to respond_to(:find).with(1).argument.and_keywords(:limit, :offset) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One thing that's unclear to me in this example (and that perhaps warrants changes in rspec-expectations before we are locked into the semantics) is what it means to mix an argument count and keywords. Is the (1).argument bit specifying the number of non-keyword arguments (e.g. positional arguments)? Where it gets confusing is that at the call site keyword args are just passed as a single hash arg, which is then interpreted as keyword args or as a single positional arg depending on how the method is defined. So it's not clear to me if keyword args should be counted and if so, if they should be counted as one arg (since the underlying mechanism uses a single hash) or as one arg per keyword.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Argument in this sense means a traditional unnamed argument.
|
Any update on the release date for rails 5, @samphippen? |
|
The release got knocked back, so we don't need to do our release yet. |
I figured that, since I saw no news about Rails 5 being released. Is there a new ETA? |
|
I will find out and get back to you. |
Doing now :) |
No description provided.