Add support for around-all

[ryankinderman]

Any thoughts on this?

[ryankinderman]

Ping.

I've got some other thoughts related to hooks that I'd like to run by you/work on, but want to get past this small one first.

Let me know if I can do anything to make it easier to review/accept this. Thanks!

[slagyr]

Arg! Sorry I didn't reply sooner. Github emails were getting marked as spam!

This is interesting. I tried to add around-all when I added all the other *-all components. At the time, I concluded that around-all was either too hard or not useful, or maybe a combination of both. I don't recall the reason I left it out.

What do you use it for?

[ryankinderman]

No worries; thanks for getting back to me.

We have some code that needs to reset a piece of state for the duration of the tests, but set it back afterwards. We'd like to use binding, but without something like around-all, we're forced to use the low-level push-thread-bindings function in a before-all, and then have a separate pop call in an after-all. It's a bit awkward.

[ryankinderman]

For example, right now we've got code something like this:

(describe "a feature"
  (before-all
    (push-thread-bindings {some-ns/*configuration* {:spanky-new-config-value 123}}))

  (after-all
    (pop-thread-bindings)))

But, since we'd prefer not to have to call push-thread-bindings directly, we'd like the code to look more like:

(describe "a feature"
  (around-all [context]
    (binding [some-ns/*configuration* {:spanky-new-config-value 123}]
      (context))))

[trptcolin]

This works great - thanks!