On 28 Jan 2010, at 21:43, Nicolás Sanguinetti wrote:
You're definitely testing too much implementation and not enough
behavior.
Basically, what you want to spec, is that provided some options, when
you call a certain method of your form builder, you get a certain html
output. At least that's
On 28 Jan 2010, at 21:14, Paul Hinze wrote:
Ashley Moran on 2010-01-28 at 13:28:
On Jan 28, 2010, at 1:29 pm, Paul Hinze wrote:
I believe the lack of ability to use this notation comes down to a
ruby
limitation, but I'm not sure. If that's the case, then we would
need a
specific argume
You're definitely testing too much implementation and not enough behavior.
Basically, what you want to spec, is that provided some options, when
you call a certain method of your form builder, you get a certain html
output. At least that's how I would approach the problem.
So I would have somethi
Ashley Moran on 2010-01-28 at 13:28:
>
> On Jan 28, 2010, at 1:29 pm, Paul Hinze wrote:
>
> > I believe the lack of ability to use this notation comes down to a ruby
> > limitation, but I'm not sure. If that's the case, then we would need a
> > specific argument expectation (along the lines of
On Jan 28, 2010, at 1:29 pm, Paul Hinze wrote:
> I believe the lack of ability to use this notation comes down to a ruby
> limitation, but I'm not sure. If that's the case, then we would need a
> specific argument expectation (along the lines of my suggestion) that
> executes in a context in whi
Hey speclers,
My spec-fu is failing me on a message expectation in which I would like to
verify that the block passed to a certain method yields the proper
value. I would like to be able to say something like:
def bar
# .. some code
foo do
'bar' # want to verify this value
end
end
des
