Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

everybody in this thread is reacting like you are about to remove the built in mocking. The idea was to deprecate it, something like if you use the build in mocking right now, fine. If you start a new project dont use it One thing is clear, mocha is much nicer than the integrated mocking, nicer

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On 4 Sep 2007, at 23:36, Dan North wrote: If we come up with a programming language-independent way of representing specs, then I'm all for a .spec suffix. (Perhaps the specdoc descriptions might be something along those lines.) Good point. I did consider suggesting .rspec as an

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On 4 Sep 2007, at 23:36, Dan North wrote: C-hash I think you meant C-pound... http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/5_years_C-pound_experience.aspx ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ashley Moran wrote: On 4 Sep 2007, at 23:36, Dan North wrote: C-hash I think you meant C-pound... http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/5_years_C-pound_experience.aspx ___ rspec-users mailing

Re: [rspec-users] response.should render_layout ....

Here's how I did it http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/2007-May/001818.html linoj On Sep 5, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Ingo Weiss wrote: Hi, is there a way to assert in rspec that a template is rendered in a specific layout? Thanks! Ingo ___

Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

Lance Carlson wrote: If core was to deprecate the included mocking framework, then why would they favor mocha over flexmock? I agree we need to have some agreement as to which one to use, but why the favoritism? If my grandmother had wheels, would she be a skateboard? They're not deprecating

[rspec-users] False Positives and Autotest on New Folders

False Positives I just discovered how easy it was to create a false positive when I, trying my first RSpec test, did this: ob.should eql?('foo') instead of: ob.should eql('foo') or: ob.should == 'foo' As far as I can see, this is roughly equivalent to: ob.should false Neither

Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

On 9/5/07, Christoph Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: everybody in this thread is reacting like you are about to remove the built in mocking. The idea was to deprecate it, something like if you use the build in mocking right now, fine. If you start a new project dont use it One thing is

Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

On 9/5/07, Steven R. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wilson Bilkovich wrote: On 9/5/07, Christoph Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: everybody in this thread is reacting like you are about to remove the built in mocking. The idea was to deprecate it, something like if you use the build in

Re: [rspec-users] False Positives and Autotest on New Folders

On 9/5/07, Geoffrey Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: False Positives I just discovered how easy it was to create a false positive when I, trying my first RSpec test, did this: ob.should eql?('foo') instead of: ob.should eql('foo') or: ob.should == 'foo' As far as I can see, this

Re: [rspec-users] Caveman Questions

On 9/5/07, sudara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello! I'm just a caveman with some caveman questions. I've been parsing Rspec for quite a while, and I'm writing my first series of specs. My initial impressions are Verbose, but understandable. Helpful and intuitive, but so much to digest. I