On 3 Sep 2007, at 15:37, David Chelimsky wrote:
> But it is an interesting idea that we should stay open to. Perhaps
> more compelling reasons for such a change will appear in the future.
I like the sound of .spec in a way. It shortens the filenames which
is always a bonus for TM users. I c
On 3 Sep 2007, at 15:03, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> Not used Autotest
>
> You SHOULD!
Why do I have a feeling I will now try it out and go WHY OH WHY
DIDN'T I USE THIS BEFORE???
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge
Personally, I dont want to become an expert at the range of possible
testing and mocking tools. I just want a solid framework to get my
work done, recommended by experts like you. And the less different
components I need to install and maintain, the better. So I prefer
the integrated approa
Hi,
I am trying to spec helper methods in a Rails project, but it seems
the specs fail with the error:
You might have expected an instance of Array.
The error occurred while evaluating nil.<<
if the restful routes helper are used either in spec files, or the helper file.
What can I be doing wr
Nevermind, i just saw an old post mentioning the same issue.
Thanks!
On 9/4/07, Surendra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to spec helper methods in a Rails project, but it seems
> the specs fail with the error:
>
> You might have expected an instance of Array.
> The error occurred
Yes I was about to forward you to my blog post
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: Surendra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 17:36:52
To:rspec-users@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] specing helpers fails on restful routes
Nevermind, i just saw an
What is the general opinion about fixtures versus mocking and stubbing
in model specs? I heard from agile on IRC that they save the database
testing for integration testing, but I also see that the caboose
sample applicaiton uses fixtures. I also noticed that on the rspec
site, it says "Ironically
On 9/4/07, Lance Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the general opinion about fixtures versus mocking and stubbing
> in model specs? I heard from agile on IRC that they save the database
> testing for integration testing, but I also see that the caboose
> sample applicaiton uses fixtures.
Ok, so to extend this issue, I'm attempting to use mocks and stubs on
my model specs. I've got some questions though.. here is my code:
module UserSpecHelper
def mock_user(user)
@user = mock_model(User)
if user == :lance || user == :account_owner
@user.stub!(:login).and_return('lan
Or am I to assume that rails is doing it's job and that the
associations I created in my models are working as they should?
On 9/4/07, Lance Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, so to extend this issue, I'm attempting to use mocks and stubs on
> my model specs. I've got some questions though..
Having used JUnit and Test::Unit, I'm quite used to having the ability to
insert a failure message, which helps when tests fail.
For instance, the example RSpec that is generated for a model class
specifies that the model class is valid. Assuming this were supposed to be
true, and it failed, I've
On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having used JUnit and Test::Unit, I'm quite used to having the ability to
> insert a failure message, which helps when tests fail.
>
> For instance, the example RSpec that is generated for a model class
> specifies that the model class is val
So I'd been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months,
and I installed edge rspec so that I can use Story Runner.
I'm running into a problem because I've got a couple rake tasks that
reference "spec/rake/raketask". If I try to run "rake spec" then it
pulls in the gem version inste
On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'd been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months,
> and I installed edge rspec so that I can use Story Runner.
>
> I'm running into a problem because I've got a couple rake tasks that
> reference "spec/rake/raketask". If I try
What I've done with this is to just uninstall the gem and commit to
working off of the plugins completely. I've found that with gems in
general, I try to keep them local to the project I'm on, almost as if
they were a plugin. I move them to my project's lib (gem unpack) so
that I've got e
>
> I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
> from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
> messages almost two years ago and I'm not sure if its ever even come
> up before. If it has, it was a long time ago.
[nod] Perhaps as I get into the mi
On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So I'd been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months,
> > and I installed edge rspec so that I can use Story Runner.
> >
> > I'm running into a problem because I've got a co
On 5/09/2007, at 8:51 AM, Geoffrey Wiseman wrote:
Using this as an example, if a new validation rule is added, this
test will fail without indicating /why/. Sure, I can get that
answer in other ways, but I'd hate to discover things like:
it "should be valid with valid attributes" do
#
On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
> > from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
> > messages almost two years ago and I'm not sure if its ever even come
> > up before. If it has,
On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So I'd been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months,
> > > and I installed edge rspec so that I can use Story Runner.
Shane Mingins wrote:
>
> On 5/09/2007, at 8:51 AM, Geoffrey Wiseman wrote:
>
>>
>> Using this as an example, if a new validation rule is added, this test
>> will fail without indicating /why/. Sure, I can get that answer in
>> other ways, but I'd hate to discover things like:
>>
>> it "should
On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > So I'd been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months,
>
On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > So I'd been ru
I generally write custom expectation matchers when I want more
specific information on failure scenarios. Granted this might not
work in all scenarios (taking time to write a custom matcher I mean),
but for most things it has made it very nice.
-Chad
On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Jay Levitt
At the moment I'm including files from the root of my spec directory
so I don't touch my spec_helper.rb file because it seems to change
every once in awhile when rspec gets upgraded. I think it would be
good if we had a place to put modules, perhaps a file that got
auto-loaded so you could include
Chad Humphries wrote:
> I generally write custom expectation matchers when I want more
> specific information on failure scenarios. Granted this might not
> work in all scenarios (taking time to write a custom matcher I mean),
> but for most things it has made it very nice.
Hmm, I wonder if
On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
> > > from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
> > > messages almost two years ago and
On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
> > > > from. We made a conscious decision, however, not
On 9/4/07, Jay Levitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Seems like, in this case, he'd output @person.errors in his message so
> he could see *why* person was invalid; the "puts" is his current
> hack-around for the lack of custom messages.
>
> Not a bad idea, really. (the custom messages, not the ha
Pat Maddox wrote:
> On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
me
On 4/09/2007, at 3:44 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> I am going to guess that it's something like this:
>
> You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> You might have expected an instance of Array.
> The error occurred while evaluating nil.<<
>
> If not, please post the error (good idea to
On 9/4/07, Shane Mingins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 4/09/2007, at 3:44 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> >
> > I am going to guess that it's something like this:
> >
> > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > You might have expected an instance of Array.
> > The error occurred whi
On 5/09/2007, at 10:00 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> This looks like the same error - can you run just the file w/ this
> spec like this:
>
> spec path/to/file.rb -b
>
> That'll produce the full backtrace.
>
> Thanks
Yeah it does look similar (I was reading the bug report last night)
You have a
Ashley Moran wrote:
On 3 Sep 2007, at 15:37, David Chelimsky wrote:
But it is an interesting idea that we should stay open to. Perhaps
more compelling reasons for such a change will appear in the future.
I like the sound of .spec in a way. It shortens the filenames which
is always
On 9/4/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe this is what your thinking?
>
> http://opensoul.org/2007/4/18/rspec-model-should-be_valid
>
That should be the default matcher for be_valid... I use that and help
me pinpoint some brittle specs (all related to new attributes added
later in th
35 matches
Mail list logo
