On Jul 1, 2010, at 10:32 PM, ericindc wrote:
> On Jul 1, 11:10 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:35 PM, ericindc wrote:
>>> On Jul 1, 10:32 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:01 PM, ericindc wrote:
> On Jul 1, 9:47 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> On Jul
Will do, thanks!
On Jul 1, 11:10 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:35 PM, ericindc wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 10:32 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
> >> On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:01 PM, ericindc wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 1, 9:47 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2010, at 8:4
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:35 PM, ericindc wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 1, 10:32 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:01 PM, ericindc wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 9:47 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 8:40 PM, ericindc wrote:
> On Jul 1, 3:23 pm, David Chelimsky
Here is the full controller spec that is passing...removing the
subject line fails all bu the render_template.
require 'spec_helper'
describe HomepageController do
describe "routes" do
it { should route(:get, "/").to(:action => :index) }
end
describe "on GET to :index" do
before(
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:01 PM, ericindc wrote:
> On Jul 1, 9:47 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 2010, at 8:40 PM, ericindc wrote:
>>> On Jul 1, 3:23 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 12:00 PM, ericindc wrote:
>>
> I am trying to use Shoulda matchers with the latest be
http://groups.google.com/group/shoulda/browse_thread/thread/9a19ca5f60285e2d
On Jul 1, 9:47 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2010, at 8:40 PM, ericindc wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 3:23 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
> >> On Jun 30, 2010, at 12:00 PM, ericindc wrote:
>
> >>> I am trying to
On Jul 1, 2010, at 8:40 PM, ericindc wrote:
> On Jul 1, 3:23 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 12:00 PM, ericindc wrote:
>>
>>> I am trying to use Shoulda matchers with the latest beta version of
>>> RSpec for Rails 3. I've managed to track down the cause of my errors
>>> to need
I have a thread open on their group page as well, but the only
response received thus far seems to think it's an RSpec issue. I am
having the same issue in my model tests as well.
On Jul 1, 3:23 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2010, at 12:00 PM, ericindc wrote:
>
> > I am trying to use S
On Jun 30, 2010, at 12:00 PM, ericindc wrote:
> I am trying to use Shoulda matchers with the latest beta version of
> RSpec for Rails 3. I've managed to track down the cause of my errors
> to needing to explicitly set the subject, but the Shoulda examples
> make no mention of requiring this step.
I am trying to use Shoulda matchers with the latest beta version of
RSpec for Rails 3. I've managed to track down the cause of my errors
to needing to explicitly set the subject, but the Shoulda examples
make no mention of requiring this step. I've pastied the errors I'm
receiving and adding subj
I updated the gist posting. All of the macros should be functional now
and have cleaned up describe blocks.
http://gist.github.com/14050
Andy Freeman wrote:
> It is a bit ugly but here is an initial port of the Shoulda ActiveRecord
> macros:
>
> http://gist.github.com/14050
>
> I did not try
It is a bit ugly but here is an initial port of the Shoulda ActiveRecord
macros:
http://gist.github.com/14050
I did not try running ALL of the macros, but most of them. Before going
too far with it, I would appreciate some recommendations as to how to
improve the flow. The Shoulda version ha
I was actually teasing... :)
As far as writing one... already on it!
David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Andy Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's a variation on that with a helper for defining macros that I'm
>>> thinking of adding to rspec. Lemme know what
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Also, a nice thing about RSpec is that when you do describe an actual
>>> object, ie: "describe Foo", you can de
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Andy Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Andy Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you willing to provide a simple ex
What's not to like?! Despite the fact that a new RSpec version was just
released, it would be nice to see a new version released right away with
this concept built in so that a RSpec version of Shoulda could start
rolling. :)
David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Zach Den
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Also, a nice thing about RSpec is that when you do describe an actual
>>> object, ie: "describe Foo", you can d
David Chelimsky wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, a nice thing about RSpec is that when you do describe an actual
object, ie: "describe Foo", you can determine this by asking the
example group what it's described type is.
This makes things a
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, a nice thing about RSpec is that when you do describe an actual
> object, ie: "describe Foo", you can determine this by asking the
> example group what it's described type is.
>
> This makes things a lot simpler and cle
Also, a nice thing about RSpec is that when you do describe an actual
object, ie: "describe Foo", you can determine this by asking the
example group what it's described type is.
This makes things a lot simpler and cleaner than having to hack away
strings, or guess based on the name of your test.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Andy Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you willing to provide a simple example?
I'm using the same example as the articled you linked to originally as
the base. This way you should be able to clearly see the differences.
http://gist.github.com/13804
Zach
Are you willing to provide a simple example?
Andy
Matt Wynne wrote:
> We do something similar to this, though we use a convention to set
> @klass to the class being spec'd in the top-level example group,
> rather than deriving it as they do in that sample.
>
> In view specs we also use a convent
We do something similar to this, though we use a convention to set
@klass to the class being spec'd in the top-level example group,
rather than deriving it as they do in that sample.
In view specs we also use a convention to always have a do_render
method available, so that we can bring in
I just stumbled upon this link this morning where Shoulda makes it easy
to automatically load custom macros. Is there a similar feature in
RSpec?
http://technicalpickles.com/posts/shoulda-can-automatically-load-custom-macros
Andy
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
That too :)
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:59 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 6:48 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> You should browse over how shoulda does it here:
>> http://thoughtbot.com/projects/s
On Jan 10, 2008 6:48 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should browse over how shoulda does it here:
> http://thoughtbot.com/projects/shoulda/tutorial/controllers
Or how others are supplying plugins for rspec:
http://weblog.techno-weenie.net/2007/12/26/controller-specs-are-a-drag
You should browse over how shoulda does it here:
http://thoughtbot.com/projects/shoulda/tutorial/controllers
and here:
http://dev.thoughtbot.com/shoulda/classes/ThoughtBot/Shoulda/Controller/ClassMethods.html
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 10, 200
On Jan 10, 2008 4:17 PM, Jonathan Leighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In principle, yes. But what if your association isn't that interesting.
> What if it is literally has_many :posts and that's it. You still want to
> make sure it will work (for instance that the posts.blogger_id column
> actual
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 18:47 -0500, Josh Knowles wrote:
> On 1/10/08, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmm, that includes a good number of them, but there's still the
> > restful resource to think about, which is in my opinion the most
> > valuable one. Would you consider the addition o
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 18:09 -0600, David Chelimsky wrote:
> It has more to do with what I'm looking at in my specs than what lies
> under the hood. Why do I care if a visitor has_many(:posts)? Maybe
> there is something different about a blogger with no posts vs one with
> 50. So I'd have an exampl
On Jan 10, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Nathan Sutton wrote:
> Well then, hop to! ;)
> Nathan Sutton
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> rspec 1.1
> rspec_on_rails 1.1
> rails 2.0.2
>
> On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:10 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> On Jan 10, 2008 6:07 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hey no
Well then, hop to! ;)
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:10 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 6:07 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Hey now! Really though, have you ever been digging through old
>> mailing
On Jan 10, 2008 6:07 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey now! Really though, have you ever been digging through old
> mailing lists and wondered which version they were using when they had
> that issue? Or when someone posts and issue, you need to ask them
> what versions of everyt
On Jan 10, 2008 6:04 PM, Jonathan Leighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 17:59 -0600, David Chelimsky wrote:
> > Another issue is BDD philosophy. BDD is about behaviour. should
> > have_many(:posts) is not behaviour. It is structure. I understand that
> > there are people who v
Hey now! Really though, have you ever been digging through old
mailing lists and wondered which version they were using when they had
that issue? Or when someone posts and issue, you need to ask them
what versions of everything they're using? It can be a pain and it
usually wastes time/e
Speaking for myself, since I support the same philosophy, I wouldn't
test the association. I don't care that it has_many posts. I might
care that I can add multiple posts, or that I can find posts by
criteria, so I would test that.
JD
On Jan 10, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Jonathan Leighton wrote:
>
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 17:59 -0600, David Chelimsky wrote:
> Another issue is BDD philosophy. BDD is about behaviour. should
> have_many(:posts) is not behaviour. It is structure. I understand that
> there are people who view this differently, and I would not want to
> get in the way of anyone using
On Jan 10, 2008 6:02 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nathan Sutton
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> rspec 1.1
> rspec_on_rails 1.1
> rails 2.0.2
I love that your sig has your rspec and rails versions. That cracks me up.
___
rspec-users mailing list
r
There David goes, making sense again.
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 10, 2008, at 5:59 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 5:50 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Also, that strikes me as strange that the current philosop
On Jan 10, 2008 5:50 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, that strikes me as strange that the current philosophy is that
> for the rspec_on_rails plugin. I would think rails-specific matchers
> would be endorsed at some point, since rails is so big on convention.
It's actually qui
Also, that strikes me as strange that the current philosophy is that
for the rspec_on_rails plugin. I would think rails-specific matchers
would be endorsed at some point, since rails is so big on convention.
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 10,
We'll see if I get around to it. It would be a lot of work, I think,
and I know a couple people who have started similar efforts.
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 10, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Josh Knowles wrote:
> On 1/10/08, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTE
On 1/10/08, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, that includes a good number of them, but there's still the
> restful resource to think about, which is in my opinion the most
> valuable one. Would you consider the addition of a restful resource
> matcher similar to shoulda's?
Yes. If
Hmm, that includes a good number of them, but there's still the
restful resource to think about, which is in my opinion the most
valuable one. Would you consider the addition of a restful resource
matcher similar to shoulda's?
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rai
On 1/10/08, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, we're currently using shoulda (http://dev.thoughtbot.com/
> shoulda/) on a project and I saw some things that would be really nice
> to see in rspec, namely the should_ methods, and especially the
> should_be_restful method. Do these go a
Hey, we're currently using shoulda (http://dev.thoughtbot.com/
shoulda/) on a project and I saw some things that would be really nice
to see in rspec, namely the should_ methods, and especially the
should_be_restful method. Do these go against the rspec goals at
all? Or could an ambitious
46 matches
Mail list logo
