aslak hellesoy wrote: > 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?
If Zach could create a screencast or precise step-by-step, I can attempt to reproduce it tonight on OS X, Windows XP, Cygwin, and/or Ubuntu 6.06. Jay _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
