Name collision with 'client' about rspec_api_documentation HOT 7 CLOSED

This is definitely a problem. We define client and depend on it to make requests to the API under test. We should make this more clear in some form of documentation at least.

I am not sure what a good solution would be to work around this, but I'm definitely open to a PR that allows users to let(:client) without colliding.

from rspec_api_documentation.

We could hang client off RspecApiDocumentation or RspecApiDocumentation.configuration instead. This would cause problems for people who have nested contexts and a different client in an inner context. Also would be a breaking change for all existing usage.

from rspec_api_documentation.

@samwgoldman personally I am a fan of making everything more explicit. Defining the client should be required, and then you would have to call client.do_request instead of having it be a magic part of the DSL

from rspec_api_documentation.

@jakehow I agree! Right now we inject example into the client, so I think we could take this opportunity to simplify the client api as well, since users will be expected to construct clients. I think we should consider using the client API available in smartlogic/http_spec.

from rspec_api_documentation.

It was my case, because I also used let(:client){...} in my code. I spent about hour to identify problem, because It was my first test with the gem. The problem was found only with debugger.

The issue is still actual, especially for newbies like me.

from rspec_api_documentation.

Unfortunately the issue of client being pretty hard wired into the gem still stands. A PR will gladly be accepted if it can fix this issue. Until then I updated the README to include a 'Gotchas' section that mentions this.

https://github.com/zipmark/rspec_api_documentation#gotchas

from rspec_api_documentation.

I have finally fixed this. Sorry it took so long. You can now do this to redefine what method rspec_api_documentation will call for the client.

Certainly an interesting fix for it, and if someone else can think up a nicer way I'm all for it. 001d5b9

from rspec_api_documentation.