On Feb 18, 2008 6:07 PM, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:03 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 2008 4:59 PM, Steve
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Not sure if this is rspec or autotest. When autotest is running, and I
> >> add new files in my rails proje
Hi all,
I know that in general, view and controller tests should be isolated,
such that controller specs don't test views etc. However, I think
I've run into a situation that might be an exception.
My controller uses render_to_string to produce a chunk of HTML that it
passes to a model to
RAILS_GEM_VERSION = '1.1.6'
rspec - Version 1.1.3
On 18/02/2008, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2008 8:30 AM, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Won't the exception get turned into a http return code from the get?
>
> It depends on a few things.
>
> Max - what v
Is there currently an option to have the rspec_controller generator
generate haml instead of erb view files, and the corresponding spec?
Thanks,
Steve
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-us
David Vollbracht spiked an rspec implementation for DeepTest:
svn diff -r 20:21 http://deep-test.rubyforge.org/svn/trunk
Unfortunately nobody has had time to finish it. If anybody is interested in
working on it, that would be awesome. I can give you repo access.
Dan
On Feb 2, 2008 9:37 PM, Scott
On Feb 18, 2008 6:38 PM, Victor Asteinza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't there redundancy between what is in your stories and your specs?
> Or are your stories at a higher level and the specs are at a lower
> level? That would make more sense to me. There would be some cross
> over. but the sp
Isn't there redundancy between what is in your stories and your specs?
Or are your stories at a higher level and the specs are at a lower
level? That would make more sense to me. There would be some cross
over. but the specs expand on what is in the stories
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 18
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:03 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 4:59 PM, Steve
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not sure if this is rspec or autotest. When autotest is running, and I
>> add new files in my rails project, it doesn't notice. I have to restart
>> autotest for it to start
On Feb 18, 2008 4:59 PM, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not sure if this is rspec or autotest. When autotest is running, and I
> add new files in my rails project, it doesn't notice. I have to restart
> autotest for it to start seeing them. Not the end of the world, just a
> small inconvenience
Not sure if this is rspec or autotest. When autotest is running, and I
add new files in my rails project, it doesn't notice. I have to restart
autotest for it to start seeing them. Not the end of the world, just a
small inconvenience.
Steve
___
rspec
My workflow is the following:
Stories->Spec Views->Spec Controllers-Spec Models
I'll write a few stories of what I think should it happen.
Then I'll write my specs of what should show (and also do some static html
page mockups)
Then I'll spec my controllers and models
I'll go back to my stories to
great minds :)
thanks guys!
On 18/02/2008, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2008 8:43 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ah yes of course :)
> >
> > So, now, "should_not be_success" passes ok, but should i be more
> specific
> > and require a particular error
On Feb 18, 2008 8:46 AM, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 500? That's internal server error. You could set up an expectation for the
> return, using a code you know isn't right (200?), then see what the actual
> value is after you get the failing test.
What he said :)
>
>
>
> On Feb 18,
On Feb 18, 2008 8:43 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ah yes of course :)
>
> So, now, "should_not be_success" passes ok, but should i be more specific
> and require a particular error code? If so, which would i get from a get
> call that's failed because of a RuntimeError exception?
500? That's internal server error. You could set up an expectation for the
return, using a code you know isn't right (200?), then see what the actual
value is after you get the failing test.
On Feb 18, 2008 8:43 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ah yes of course :)
>
> So, now, "shoul
ah yes of course :)
So, now, "should_not be_success" passes ok, but should i be more specific
and require a particular error code? If so, which would i get from a get
call that's failed because of a RuntimeError exception?
thanks!
On 18/02/2008, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Won't
On Feb 18, 2008 8:30 AM, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Won't the exception get turned into a http return code from the get?
It depends on a few things.
Max - what versions of rspec and rails are you using?
>
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2008 8:29 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
Won't the exception get turned into a http return code from the get?
On Feb 18, 2008 8:29 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a User controller where users aren't added with the usual
> new/create actions. I'm trying to set it so that it raises when 'new' is
> called but it does
I have a User controller where users aren't added with the usual new/create
actions. I'm trying to set it so that it raises when 'new' is called but it
doesn't seem to be working - here's the method, test and test result. Can
anyone see why it's not working?
#in controller
def new
raise "Us
I am new to BDD and have been doing some reading and playing with
rSpec. I am a little confused. I am not sure what the best practice
for using stories and specs. Should I be writing stories first, then
specs that would fulfill those stories, and then write the
implementation code to have everyt
> I would think just have the spec_helper.rb file for the specs try to load
> config/rspec.rb or something along those lines. Similar to how rspec for
> rails just loads the rails env. It would then be up to the user to do the
> necessary loading in that file. There's really no way to know what cra
21 matches
Mail list logo
