On 8/20/07, Jay Levitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Thanks for offering to do this Jay - that's great. > > Jay > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
