On 8/19/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/19/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/16/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 8/16/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 8/16/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 8/16/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I am getting: > > > > > > undefined method `mock_model' for [RSpec > > > > > > example]:#<Class:0x25550a8> > > > > > > > > > > The fact that it says [RSpec example] means that it's not the right > > > > > class for a view spec. The plugin knows how to create the right class > > > > > based on one of two things: > > > > > > > > > > If the file is below /spec/views/ > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > describe "...", :behaviour_type => :view do > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > If the spec you're running satisfies either of these, you shouldn't be > > > > > seeing this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with my view specs after upgrading to 1.0.8. Is anyone else seeing > > > > > > this? > > > > > > > > > > > > To isolate the message I did the following setup: > > > > > > > > > > > > - create new rails project (with edge) > > > > > > - installed rspec and rspec_on_rails > > > > > > - ran rake spec > > > > > > - ran script/generate rspec_scaffold products > > > > > > - tried to run a builtin view spec > > > > > > > > > > When you say "builtin view spec," do you mean one that was generated > > > > > by running the rspec_scaffold generator? > > > > > > > > > > > > > One that was generated by the rspec_scaffold generator, > > > > > > Sorry man, it should be working fine. I'm not having that experience > > > personally - is anybody else? > > > > > > Zach - what platform are you on? > > > > > > > I tried on OSX and also Kubuntu Feisty. I think the rspec scaffold > > generators need to be updated to include ", :behaviour_type => > > :view". > > I'd like to avoid that because it would be extra noise and it > shouldn't be necessary. The generated specs work absolutely perfectly > for me as/is (I'm on OS X). There have been a couple of bugs related > to regexps and windows paths over time, but they've either been > resolved or await more feedback from users in the tracker. > > I'm thinking about other ways to be explicit about this (besides the > verbose ":behaviour_type => :view". What if we added methods like: > > describe_model > describe_view > describe_controller > describe_helper >
I like these. They are explicit. > Or support the first argument being a Symbol: > > describe :model, "Thing" do > > I'm not sure I like those, but I kind of dislike :behaviour_type => > :foo as a default. > > WDYT? > > David > > > > > > Zach > > _______________________________________________ > > rspec-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
