On 3 Sep 2007, at 15:03, David Chelimsky wrote:
Not used Autotest
You SHOULD!
Why do I have a feeling I will now try it out and go WHY OH WHY
DIDN'T I USE THIS BEFORE???
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
Personally, I dont want to become an expert at the range of possible
testing and mocking tools. I just want a solid framework to get my
work done, recommended by experts like you. And the less different
components I need to install and maintain, the better. So I prefer
the integrated
Hi,
I am trying to spec helper methods in a Rails project, but it seems
the specs fail with the error:
You might have expected an instance of Array.
The error occurred while evaluating nil.
if the restful routes helper are used either in spec files, or the helper file.
What can I be doing
Yes I was about to forward you to my blog post
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: Surendra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 17:36:52
To:rspec-users@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] specing helpers fails on restful routes
Nevermind, i just saw an
On 9/4/07, Lance Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the general opinion about fixtures versus mocking and stubbing
in model specs? I heard from agile on IRC that they save the database
testing for integration testing, but I also see that the caboose
sample applicaiton uses fixtures. I
Ok, so to extend this issue, I'm attempting to use mocks and stubs on
my model specs. I've got some questions though.. here is my code:
module UserSpecHelper
def mock_user(user)
@user = mock_model(User)
if user == :lance || user == :account_owner
Or am I to assume that rails is doing it's job and that the
associations I created in my models are working as they should?
On 9/4/07, Lance Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, so to extend this issue, I'm attempting to use mocks and stubs on
my model specs. I've got some questions though..
Having used JUnit and Test::Unit, I'm quite used to having the ability to
insert a failure message, which helps when tests fail.
For instance, the example RSpec that is generated for a model class
specifies that the model class is valid. Assuming this were supposed to be
true, and it failed,
On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having used JUnit and Test::Unit, I'm quite used to having the ability to
insert a failure message, which helps when tests fail.
For instance, the example RSpec that is generated for a model class
specifies that the model class is valid.
On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I'd been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months,
and I installed edge rspec so that I can use Story Runner.
I'm running into a problem because I've got a couple rake tasks that
reference spec/rake/raketask. If I try to run
I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
messages almost two years ago and I'm not sure if its ever even come
up before. If it has, it was a long time ago.
[nod] Perhaps as I get into the
On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I'd been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months,
and I installed edge rspec so that I can use Story Runner.
I'm running into a problem because I've got a couple rake
On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
messages almost two years ago and I'm not sure if its ever even come
up before. If it has, it was a
Shane Mingins wrote:
On 5/09/2007, at 8:51 AM, Geoffrey Wiseman wrote:
Using this as an example, if a new validation rule is added, this test
will fail without indicating /why/. Sure, I can get that answer in
other ways, but I'd hate to discover things like:
it should be valid with
I generally write custom expectation matchers when I want more
specific information on failure scenarios. Granted this might not
work in all scenarios (taking time to write a custom matcher I mean),
but for most things it has made it very nice.
-Chad
On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Jay Levitt
On 4/09/2007, at 3:44 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
I am going to guess that it's something like this:
You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
You might have expected an instance of Array.
The error occurred while evaluating nil.
If not, please post the error (good idea to do that
On 9/4/07, Shane Mingins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/09/2007, at 3:44 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
I am going to guess that it's something like this:
You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
You might have expected an instance of Array.
The error occurred while evaluating
Ashley Moran wrote:
On 3 Sep 2007, at 15:37, David Chelimsky wrote:
But it is an interesting idea that we should stay open to. Perhaps
more compelling reasons for such a change will appear in the future.
I like the sound of .spec in a way. It shortens the filenames which
is
On 9/4/07, Ben Mabey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe this is what your thinking?
http://opensoul.org/2007/4/18/rspec-model-should-be_valid
That should be the default matcher for be_valid... I use that and help
me pinpoint some brittle specs (all related to new attributes added
later in the
19 matches
Mail list logo
