> You're about 4 years late to the party. We were playing around with a
> variety of options back in 2005 and went with the current syntax because it
> gave us the most flexibility and the highest level of decoupling, making it
> easier for others to create their own matcher libraries. While it wou
> And when it did there was a lot more in the way of methods added to
> Kernel, and that's one of the reasons I avoided RSpec back then, way
> too much Heisenberg effect.
>
> With the current design, there's very little added to all Ruby
> objects, just Kernel#should and Kernel#should_not and that
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:53 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:33 AM, rogerdpack
> wrote:
>>
>> It is somewhat surprising to me, as a newbie, to have to assert
>> a.should be_a(Hash)
>>
>> That extra space in there feels awkward.
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> allow for constructs
On Nov 29, 2009, at 6:33 am, rogerdpack wrote:
> It is somewhat surprising to me, as a newbie, to have to assert
> a.should be_a(Hash)
Hi Roger
Once you see the matcher (ie be_a) as something that returns a matcher object,
it makes a lot more sense. My brain is now wired to give much more wei
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:33 AM, rogerdpack wrote:
> It is somewhat surprising to me, as a newbie, to have to assert
> a.should be_a(Hash)
>
> That extra space in there feels awkward.
>
> Suggestion:
>
> allow for constructs like
> a.should.be_a(Hash)
>
> Thoughts?
>
You're about 4 years late to
It is somewhat surprising to me, as a newbie, to have to assert
a.should be_a(Hash)
That extra space in there feels awkward.
Suggestion:
allow for constructs like
a.should.be_a(Hash)
Thoughts?
Much thanks.
-r
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@r
Pat Maddox wrote:
Can you please post an example of the spec and production code that
isn't behaving as you expect?
Pat
Sure, sorry been tied up with business travel this week. Here's my
controller...
class SubscribersController < ApplicationController
def test
file = File.ne
Zach Dennis wrote:
* If you want ordered message expectations on a mock you have to
explicitly tell them to be ordered.
Really, you can do that? I'm curious about how.
Checkout http://rspec.info/documentation/mocks/message_expectations.html
And look at the Ordering section.
Can you please post an example of the spec and production code that
isn't behaving as you expect?
Pat
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Mark Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Zach Dennis wrote:
>>
>> I'm top posting... I wish I could inline post, but you provided a lot
>> of generalizations for how you think things are working on your code,
>> but you don't actually post concrete code (the shou
Zach Dennis wrote:
I'm top posting... I wish I could inline post, but you provided a lot
of generalizations for how you think things are working on your code,
but you don't actually post concrete code (the should_receive and
should_not_receive case you mentioned that wasn't acting like you'd
exp
Stephen Eley wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Mark Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] What I've observed is that it behaves differently
if I include a "should_not_receive('...')" expectation somewhere in the
spec. In that case it seems that I can have as many "file.puts()" in th
I'm top posting... I wish I could inline post, but you provided a lot
of generalizations for how you think things are working on your code,
but you don't actually post concrete code (the should_receive and
should_not_receive case you mentioned that wasn't acting like you'd
expect). Perhaps this wil
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Mark Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...] What I've observed is that it behaves differently
> if I include a "should_not_receive('...')" expectation somewhere in the
> spec. In that case it seems that I can have as many "file.puts()" in the
> component bein
Stephen Eley wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Mark Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
and then check that the expected messages are being received -
file.should_receive(:puts).with("a string").once
file.should_receive(:puts).with("another string").once
Here's what I'm puzzled about. I
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Mark Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> It seems as if "should_receive" is queuing up the messages that come into
> the file object and when it tests an expectation it just looks at the next
> one in line. If it doesn't match then the expectation will fail.
>
Y
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Stephen Eley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> That sounds right to me. You declared 'file' as a mock. Mocks are
>> bratty little children that treat it as an error and throw a tantrum
>> if
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Stephen Eley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Mark Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> and then check that the expected messages are being received -
>> file.should_receive(:puts).with("a string").once
>> file.should_receive(:puts).
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Mark Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> and then check that the expected messages are being received -
> file.should_receive(:puts).with("a string").once
> file.should_receive(:puts).with("another string").once
>
> Here's what I'm puzzled about. If I don't inclu
On 2008-10-17, at 14:55, Mark Thomson wrote:
..snip..
It seems as if "should_receive" is queuing up the messages that come
into the file object and when it tests an expectation it just looks
at the next one in line. If it doesn't match then the expectation
will fail.
Hi Mark. From my unde
Actually, this is evidently not the whole story. I actually have two
examples in the same spec, and I just realized that the other one has
instances of file.should_receive(:puts) that don't seem to suffer the
same limitation I described. So it looks like there is something about
the example I d
I'm writing my first controller spec - for a controller that already
exists, and in the process have observed some behavior I find a little
surprising. I'd like to know whether I'm interpreting the situation
correctly...
In my controller I have some stuff written to a file, i.e.
file = File.n
22 matches
Mail list logo
