Optional groups

[asross]

See issue #319.

[dblock]

Thanks.

I smell too many parameters in ParamsScope. Maybe it's time for it to take a hash of options?

Could you please update CHANGELOG, too.

[asross]

Agreed about ParamsScope. Not sure if you want that done for this pull request; I'll try to take a pass at it later if I have time. Done.

[asross]

Also, this would be a breaking change, but it might be simpler to do:

optional :group1 do
  requires :field1
end

requires :group2 do
  requires :field2
end

That is, instead of having methods group and optional_group, just allow optional and requires to take blocks that instantiate new scopes.

[dblock]

You can probably introduce optional and requires the way you suggest without removing group and optional_group, that would be backward compatible, right?

There's a merge conflict, could you merge from upstream please.

[dblock]

There's an extra period before your name - [ ... :)

Aside of that HUGE deal (j/k), maybe something simpler as a one-liner, like the fact that you added optional_group that does X?

[dblock]

Given your last comment I wonder whether optional_group is the best choice. What if it was optional to begin with and group and requires were aliases of each-other?

[asross]

Yeah, I'm thinking similarly, although I don't think you should be able to call group without a block (it could just call requires, though). Best not to introduce the optional_group method only to have it immediately become deprecated.

[asross]

What do you think of that change? The only thing I feel leery about is how to handle extra arguments to requires and optional when a block is given. I decided to raise an argument error here, but maybe there's a better solution.

[dblock]

Love it. I am going to let it maroon here for a day or so and will merge unless I hear objections from other people.

[dblock]

I merged this, thank you so much. Good work.

[asross]

Thanks! Glad to be of help.

[zuk]

Thanks for this!