Thanks. That got me moving.
I like how in rspec I can say context when I mean context and describe
when I mean describe. Going by that principal here I should have been
allowed to say pending when I mean pending and I should not be forced
to use it which would come in report as pending.
It is nitpicking but paying attention to such detail has made rspec so
great. Just a fresh perspective since I am trying out rspec for the
first time.
On May 26, 2:20 pm, Scott Taylor <sc...@railsnewbie.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 2010, at 2:07 PM, Nadal wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I wrote following code and it did not work.
>
> > describe User do
> > it { should validate_presence_of(:email) }
> > pending "should raise an error when email is blank and record is
> > saved with false option"
> > end
>
> > Then I put pending inside it like one given below and it worked.
>
> > describe User do
> > it { should validate_presence_of(:email) }
> > it "" do
> > pending "should raise an error when email is blank and record is
> > saved with false option"
> > end
> > end
>
> Use an it with no block:
>
> it "should raise an error when email is blank and record is saved with false
> option"
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> > I know that rspec is well thought out . Then why rspec is forcing me
> > to put empty it around pending line. Why can't I just say that
> > something is pending and I will get to it later.
>
> > Thanks for all the good work.
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us...@rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us...@rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
