I can see the good in simplicity there. I just liked the ability to say Foo.has_many(:bars).through(:foobars) in such a readable way. I did write methodology for a more terse listing of the options as Foo.has_many(:bars).with_options(:through => :bars) etc.
RSL On 10/19/07, Jerrett Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have a similar one, which works like: > > > Foo.should have_association(:has_many, :conditions => "stuff", :through > => :bazes) > > we started off with should have_many etc, but it became overcomplicated > with all the various things that you may want - so we changed to > have_association to make it simpler and ensure it will work with any/all > association options > > http://pastie.caboo.se/108976 > > > > > > Russell Norris wrote: > > I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows > > you to specify things like: > > > > Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes) > > > > I'm pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have suggested > > that I should submit it to the rspec_on_rails project. Before I go to > > the trouble of writing out rdoc and fully spec'ing it, I just wanted > > to make sure this was something the community would like. > > > > Instead of pasting in the code into the email, I thought I'd just make > > a pastie and let those interested read it there: > > http://pastie.caboo.se/108922 > > > > I think it would make a nice addition to the current Rails matchers. > > Here's hoping you do too. > > > > RSL > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
