Emanuele Magliozzi

@olleolleolle can you rebase your branch to use the `linear` branch? that is what we have been using instead of `master` - thanks for your PR!

@olleolleolle that sounds about right but we still see all those commits...instead, we want to see only 1 commit with your changes. This is what I would do: forked, fetch...

I do `expect(MyNestedOperation).to receive(:call_with_circuit_interface).with(blabla).and_call_original` which works fine. The "real" problem is when you have a series of complex Nested operations and you simply want to test that separately so you...

@apotonick “usable” in order to write a test like (I’m with the phone, hard to write code): - if the Nested op returns this signal and this ctx I’ll have...

@apotonick should we have this as a new feature in the 3.x version?

@fran-worley @apotonick should we consider these changes for the next release - if yes, let’s add it in the 2.3v milestone

@OgnianApostolov it would be great if you could test this on the `v2.3.0.rc2` branch :+1:

@apotonick let’s move this to the disposable gem as you suggested

We are not adding any new feature in reform 2.3.0 but we might consider this for reform 3.x - again it’s hard to tell when though - I will add...

@fran-worley @apotonick should we consider these changes for the next release - if yes, let’s add it in the 2.3v milestone