On 8/20/07, Jay Levitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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)? >
Good point. Let's figure out why it doesn't work for Zach first. Zach: What's the relative path of the spec? Did you move it after it was created? Aslak > 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 > >> [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 > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
