> 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 > > Or support the first argument being a Symbol: > > describe :model, "Thing" do
I'm not clear why we need any new syntax at all - isn't this just a bug related to some configurations, if it works for David but not for Zach (both on OS X)? Jay > > 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 >> rspec-users@rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >> > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
