Add language attribute to KalibroConfiguration

[danielkza]

Fixes #109.

[rafamanzo]

Nice work. Just missed the CHANGELOG :)

[diegoamc]

Aren't we just testing the way ruby is supposed to work here?

If this is for documentation purposes (which I think is good), maybe we should consider printing more specific messages.

What do you think of:

[:name, :description, :language].each do |attr|
  it "should have accessors for the #{attr} attribute" do
    expect(subject).to have_attr_accessor(attr)
  end
end

Caveat: I'm not entirely sure that code snippet works 🍷

[do-you-dare]

It does :)

[danielkza]

The test is just to ensure the methods are defined. It doesn't check where
they actually work. I thought it was interesting, since it is the defining
part of the change, and defines the API.

The have_attr_accessor matcher unfortunately isn't part of rspec, but I
imported it from a StackOverflow answer.

Em sáb, 4 de jun de 2016 21:57, Eduardo Silva [email protected]
escreveu:

In spec/entities/configurations/kalibro_configuration_spec.rb
#110 (comment):

@@ -17,6 +17,14 @@
require 'spec_helper'

describe KalibroClient::Entities::Configurations::KalibroConfiguration do

• describe 'accessors' do
• it 'should have accessors for the needed attributes' do

It does :)

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/mezuro/kalibro_client/pull/110/files/70427ae757120cfd73f7e51077190a42b8010cfe#r65809835,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAtnTnZwp_Rica8ZCWBvV5DK7fOtqWP1ks5qIh7igaJpZM4IqDsX
.

[diegoamc]

So that reinforces my opinion that we should use the code snippet I wrote.

Thanks for checking that it works, @dread-uo!