Thanks on the reminder that "new" is a class method. Plus, I figured using
mocks and fixtures together was probably a crappy idea. I'll be mocking
from now on...
--Tiffani AB
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Steve Eley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Tiffani Ashley
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Tiffani Ashley Bell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When I run the tests the third test fails and RSpec complains that "Mock
> 'Account_1003' expected :new with (any args) once, but received it 0 times"
>
> I'm confused about that since I am calling Account.new in the
Awesome. I totally get it, but is that how you're always supposed to spec
out associations and all the methods that go with an association like
"create" and such? I'm interested in that because I'm specing a lot of code
that deals heavily with code that has associations going on, yet none of the
On Jul 3, 2008, at 10:55 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
The problem I just found with shared specs is that if one fails, you
don't see the sharer in the callstack, so you really don't know what
went wrong.
Even if you run it with --backtrace?
///ark
The problem I just found with shared specs is that if one fails, you don't
see the sharer in the callstack, so you really don't know what went wrong.
///ark
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspe
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Tiffani Ashley Bell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
Hi Tiffany, welcome to Rspec
> I was reading the Typo source code, however, and came across some code that
> I didn't know exactly how it worked. I've noticed that in testing one of
> their controllers
Hi everybody,
I'm pretty new to RSpec and have been reading over examples and tutorials of
how to use the framework. I like everything so far since it goes right
along with Rails' expressiveness and such.
I was reading the Typo source code, however, and came across some code that
I didn't know e
