callback after contract definition: let me wait till there's a case that really needs it
I'm running it like this
contracts.ruby|master ⇒ ruby benchmarks/hash.rb
I've cloned from master
and btw great job on the library :) I'm doing an internal webinar about it tomorrow and wanted to include the benchmarks in it
let me try running, one sec
RUBYLIB=./lib ruby benchmarks/hash.rb
try that^
I can share the presentation after I finish it, but it's mostly a presentation of the library as a whole, and is heavily based on the getting started guide (great guide btw). If you are interested in posting it on wiki or something, I can send it to you, and you can evaluate if it's worth it. What do you think?
@antoinelyset I have created an implementation of value objects that respects contracts. See if you like it: search "github gsrubylib". But it's wrapped up in my personal library at the moment. I need to extract it into a gem. But it would make sense to include a Struct implementation as well.
You're welcome to do whatever you like with the code.
I totally forgot about posting the presentation I did, sorry for that - https://github.com/Szeliga/webinar-contracts-31-07-2015 here is the reveal.js version, https://github.com/Szeliga/webinar-contracts-31-07-2015/blob/master/presentation.pdf and here is a pdf version
@Szeliga Thanks for the pointer to the presentation. Always fun to read about Contracts! I think the EvenNumber example should check that the argument is Integer before using the % method. Otherwise you don't get a nice contract violation when you pass a String, for instance.
Just published this blog post about rspec-mocks + contracts.ruby + custom validators feature: http://waterlink.github.io/blog/2015/08/31/using-contracts-dot-ruby-with-rspec-part-2/
hey @waterlink I like that you added a
blackbelt label here: https://github.com/egonSchiele/contracts.ruby/issues/191#issuecomment-126202370
what do you think of adding a
bunnyslope label to easy tickets going forward?
That way if someone wants to contribute to the project, they have an easy place to start
Someone made an animation of the contributions to contracts.ruby
If anyone is out there, I'd love an opinion about this: https://gist.github.com/gsinclair/39d848df1439ba86c02355a0376fa51f
(TL;DR: Why am I getting a contract violation on argument 3 of 3 when there are only two arguments to the method?)
oops enter just send the message - -
Contract Enumerable, Func[Any => Any] => None
Maybe Func has bug?
Try Contract Enumerable, Any => None first
