Re: [rspec-users] Standardize environment between specs containing class defs
You can have a global after block in your spec_helper.rb that undefines all such constants. Then you just have to remember to add these constants to some global array whenever you define them. a On 9/21/07, Matt Margolis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have some specs that involve the use of eval and class definitions to test code generation. I want to always start with a clean slate so none of my tests fail or succeed incorrectly due to artifacts left over from previous specs. Example of my situation Spec 1 defines class Fish class Cod Fish Spec 2 defines class Animal class Cod Animal In this situation the second spec will fail since Cod was previously defined to be a subclass of Fish and you can not change the superclass of a subclass in ruby without causing an exception. I want the resetting to be as automatic as possible since calling remove_constant on every class my code defines after each spec is a real pain since this situation is going to crop up in lots of different specs and describe blocks. Thank you, Matt Margolis ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
[rspec-users] TextMate Bundle and exception when switching to alternate file.
Hey, sorry if this is something better suited to another list. I've encountered a strange problem with the RSpec.tmbundle in trunk - namely that it was raising an exception when pressing ctrl-shift-downarrow (switch between spec and source - Alternate File). I tracked down the issue to be handling of the file_type in switch_command.rb#content_for() - the code expected the type string to be just 'spec' when it can be 'view spec' or 'model spec' etc. Unfortunately I don't know whether this is just an issue with my local textmate install or if it is, in fact, a bug. Here is a diff showing how I solved the problem for myself - if it's valid across-the-board it would be great if it could be applied to trunk. Index: RSpec.tmbundle/Support/lib/spec/mate/switch_command.rb === --- RSpec.tmbundle/Support/lib/spec/mate/switch_command.rb (revision 2607) +++ RSpec.tmbundle/Support/lib/spec/mate/switch_command.rb (working copy) @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ def content_for(file_type, relative_path) case file_type - when 'spec' then + when /spec$/ then spec(relative_path) else klass(relative_path) Thanks for your attention, Trevor -- -- Trevor Squires http://somethinglearned.com ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] RSpec view spec writing problem (unable to generate url_for in RESTful resource link_to)
BTW I also tried this:
template.stub!(:edit_label_url).and_return('')
but the same error continues to persist
On 9/21/07, Lance Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW I know this is old, but did you know you can do this?
iink_to a.name, [EMAIL PROTECTED], @project],,{:class=show,:title=Show
actor details} ?
I'm having trouble mocking this my view specs right now as it is
giving me errors, but it works fine in rails edge. I will report on my
discoveries if anyone has figured out how to deal with this new way to
call polymorphic path helpers. any takers? My error is as follows:
1)
ActionView::TemplateError in 'Label Page should have a link to add a new
artist'
edit_label_url failed to generate from {:action=edit,
:controller=labels, :id=#Label:0x..fdb3c5798
@name=Label_1000}, expected: {:controller=labels,
:action=edit}, diff: {:id=#Label:0x..fdb3c5798
@name=Label_1000}
On line #3 of app/views/labels/show.rhtml
3: %= link_to 'Edit', [ @label, :edit ] %br /
On 9/10/07, Scott Sehlhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks very much. I feel like a bit of a fool, now, for the odd error.
Changing from:
%=
link_to(a.name,actor_path(@customer,@project),{:class=show,:title=Show
actor details}) -%
To
%=
link_to(a.name,actor_path(@customer,@project,a),{:class=show,:title=Show
actor details}) -%
Caused everything to work like a champ. And uncovered an interesting bug.
When not specifying the actor 'a', the link is generated (in the page), but
with id=1. No idea if/when I would have caught that.
Thanks again David, and all the RSpec'ers out there.
Also, thanks for the multi-nesting pointer.
Scott
On 9/10/07, David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/10/07, Scott Sehlhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, first, to everyone who's asked and answered questions on this
list,
and to the creators of RSpec - it is all very helpful. I've searched
the
mailing list, and had a couple 2hr googling sessions that didn't help me
find an answer.
I've run into a problem getting my first non-trivial view spec to run.
I
get an error when trying to generate a link_to() to another resource.
Here
is an overview of the situation, then the code:
I'm using a restful design
I'm using nested (multiply nested) resources
I am trying to test a show.rhtml view, that includes links (link_to) to
resources managed by another controller
The use_case model has a many-to-may through relationship with actors,
and
I'm displaying links to the associated actors on the use_case page
I can't get the links to generate when running rspec (but it works great
in
the app)
I am in the early stages of the project, and want to move forward BDD,
but I
have some existing code that I need to test before I can start moving
forward again.
My theories: I need to stub the controller (for the other resource), or
I
need to stub something else.
Here's the command I'm running to drive RSpec
ruby script/spec -f s spec/views
Here's the error that I get
1)
ActionView::TemplateError in 'UseCase showing a use case should display
the
use case identifier'
actor_url failed to generate from {:customer_id=1,
:controller=actors, :action=show, :project_id=1}, expecte
d: {:controller=actors, :action=show}, diff: {:customer_id=1,
:project_id=1}
On line #22 of app/views/use_cases/show.rhtml
19: ul
20: % @primary_actors.each do |a| %
21: li
22: %=
link_to(a.name,actor_path(@customer,@project),{:class=show,:title=Show
actor details}) -%
23: %= link_to(Remove
assignment,participation_path(@customer,@project,@use_case.participations.find_by
_actor_id(a)),{:class=delete,:title=Remove the
assignment of this actor to this use case, :confirm = 'Are you sur
e you want to remove this assignment?', :method = :delete})-%
24: /li
25: % end %
#{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/routing.rb:1273:in
`raise_named_route_error'
#{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/routing.rb:1245:in
`generate'
#{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/url_rewriter.rb:104:in
`rewrite_path'
#{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/url_rewriter.rb:69:in
`rewrite'
#{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb:522:in
`url_for'
#{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/helpers/url_helper.rb:27:in
`url_for'
(eval):19:in `actor_path'
#{RAILS_ROOT}/app/views/use_cases/show.rhtml:22:in
`_run_rhtml_47app47views47use_cases47show46rhtml'
#{RAILS_ROOT}/app/views/use_cases/show.rhtml:20:in
Re: [rspec-users] given_it
Have you seen shared behaviours?
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Just decided to check whether I am doing something that makes sense
or not. I was thinking about how cool would it be to re-use examples
(just like we reuse story scenarios with GivenScenario). I was not
sure if this possibility already exists in rspec (and, honestly, was
lazy to check), so I have created this helper:
def given_it(name)
example_definition = behaviour.example_definitions.find{|i|
i.description == name }
instance_eval(example_definition.example_block)
end
so it is possible to write things like
it should do something after another action do
given_it should successfully do another action
do_something.should be_fine
end
Is there anything already in rspec that allows me to do the same
stuff? Or was it a bad idea at all?
Yurii.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] TextMate Bundle and exception when switching to alternate file.
Please submit this to the tracker as a patch. http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=797 Thanks, David On 9/21/07, Trevor Squires [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, sorry if this is something better suited to another list. I've encountered a strange problem with the RSpec.tmbundle in trunk - namely that it was raising an exception when pressing ctrl-shift-downarrow (switch between spec and source - Alternate File). I tracked down the issue to be handling of the file_type in switch_command.rb#content_for() - the code expected the type string to be just 'spec' when it can be 'view spec' or 'model spec' etc. Unfortunately I don't know whether this is just an issue with my local textmate install or if it is, in fact, a bug. Here is a diff showing how I solved the problem for myself - if it's valid across-the-board it would be great if it could be applied to trunk. Index: RSpec.tmbundle/Support/lib/spec/mate/switch_command.rb === --- RSpec.tmbundle/Support/lib/spec/mate/switch_command.rb (revision 2607) +++ RSpec.tmbundle/Support/lib/spec/mate/switch_command.rb (working copy) @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ def content_for(file_type, relative_path) case file_type - when 'spec' then + when /spec$/ then spec(relative_path) else klass(relative_path) Thanks for your attention, Trevor -- -- Trevor Squires http://somethinglearned.com ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] given_it
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
it should do #1 do
...
end
it should do X after #1 do
given_it should do #1
should do_x
end
it should do Y after #1 do
given_it should do #1
should do_y
end
it should do Z after #1 Y do
given_it should do Y after #1
should do_z
end
Sorry mate - that just seems like endless confusion - the examples
should never rely on each other that way - different animal from
scenarios that involve steps.
Or am I missing somethiing?
On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:49 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
Have you seen shared behaviours?
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Just decided to check whether I am doing something that makes sense
or not. I was thinking about how cool would it be to re-use examples
(just like we reuse story scenarios with GivenScenario). I was not
sure if this possibility already exists in rspec (and, honestly, was
lazy to check), so I have created this helper:
def given_it(name)
example_definition = behaviour.example_definitions.find{|i|
i.description == name }
instance_eval(example_definition.example_block)
end
so it is possible to write things like
it should do something after another action do
given_it should successfully do another action
do_something.should be_fine
end
Is there anything already in rspec that allows me to do the same
stuff? Or was it a bad idea at all?
Yurii.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] given_it
Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is it should do #1 do ... end it should do X after #1 do given_it should do #1 should do_x end it should do Y after #1 do given_it should do #1 should do_y end it should do Z after #1 Y do given_it should do Y after #1 should do_z end Sorry mate - that just seems like endless confusion - the examples should never rely on each other that way - different animal from scenarios that involve steps. I agree that they should not rely on each other _indirectly_. But why they should not _reuse_ each other? I find it very useful for testing, say, different aspects of, say, controller's behavior. I simply do not want to put all checks into one example, like it should do this, this and this and in result we should have this, this and that. How do you propose to test different aspects of single actions in a nice way? ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] given_it
This concept violates oo if you want to test whether or not r method calls
another method you would do that in the test and label it occordingly. What you
are defining is such a narrow use case I think it would be abused
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:03:30
To:rspec-users rspec-users@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] given_it
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
it should do #1 do
...
end
it should do X after #1 do
given_it should do #1
should do_x
end
it should do Y after #1 do
given_it should do #1
should do_y
end
it should do Z after #1 Y do
given_it should do Y after #1
should do_z
end
Sorry mate - that just seems like endless confusion - the examples
should never rely on each other that way - different animal from
scenarios that involve steps.
Or am I missing somethiing?
On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:49 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
Have you seen shared behaviours?
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Just decided to check whether I am doing something that makes sense
or not. I was thinking about how cool would it be to re-use examples
(just like we reuse story scenarios with GivenScenario). I was not
sure if this possibility already exists in rspec (and, honestly, was
lazy to check), so I have created this helper:
def given_it(name)
example_definition = behaviour.example_definitions.find{|i|
i.description == name }
instance_eval(example_definition.example_block)
end
so it is possible to write things like
it should do something after another action do
given_it should successfully do another action
do_something.should be_fine
end
Is there anything already in rspec that allows me to do the same
stuff? Or was it a bad idea at all?
Yurii.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] given_it
If you want to reuse stuff in your tests put those test methods in a separate module and include them into you specs Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Yurii Rashkovskii [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:12:50 To:rspec-users rspec-users@rubyforge.org Subject: Re: [rspec-users] given_it Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is it should do #1 do ... end it should do X after #1 do given_it should do #1 should do_x end it should do Y after #1 do given_it should do #1 should do_y end it should do Z after #1 Y do given_it should do Y after #1 should do_z end Sorry mate - that just seems like endless confusion - the examples should never rely on each other that way - different animal from scenarios that involve steps. I agree that they should not rely on each other _indirectly_. But why they should not _reuse_ each other? I find it very useful for testing, say, different aspects of, say, controller's behavior. I simply do not want to put all checks into one example, like it should do this, this and this and in result we should have this, this and that. How do you propose to test different aspects of single actions in a nice way? ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] given_it
Then I will have tens of methods that in fact has nothing really different from reused examples On Sep 21, 2007, at 11:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to reuse stuff in your tests put those test methods in a separate module and include them into you specs Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] given_it
Ok, let me try to explain. I have some controllers that are doing
some kind of main action and some additional ones. These actions
are belong to different aspects of logic and thus
I'd prefer to test them separately to have clean and nice code that
can be easily modified.
Then, what's better to read?
it should do main action do
do_main_action
end
it should set some value in session if there was no another specific
value in session before do
session[:a] = 1
do_main_action
session[:b].should == b
end
def do_main_action
post :create, ...
end
or
it should do main action do
post :create, ...
end
it should set some value in session if there was no another specific
value in session before do
session[:a] = 1
given_it should do main action
session[:b].should == b
end
I personally like second one.
P.S. Examples above are surely artificial.
On Sep 21, 2007, at 11:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This concept violates oo if you want to test whether or not r
method calls another method you would do that in the test and label
it occordingly. What you are defining is such a narrow use case I
think it would be abused
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:03:30
To:rspec-users rspec-users@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] given_it
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
it should do #1 do
...
end
it should do X after #1 do
given_it should do #1
should do_x
end
it should do Y after #1 do
given_it should do #1
should do_y
end
it should do Z after #1 Y do
given_it should do Y after #1
should do_z
end
Sorry mate - that just seems like endless confusion - the examples
should never rely on each other that way - different animal from
scenarios that involve steps.
Or am I missing somethiing?
On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:49 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
Have you seen shared behaviours?
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Just decided to check whether I am doing something that makes sense
or not. I was thinking about how cool would it be to re-use
examples
(just like we reuse story scenarios with GivenScenario). I was not
sure if this possibility already exists in rspec (and, honestly,
was
lazy to check), so I have created this helper:
def given_it(name)
example_definition = behaviour.example_definitions.find{|i|
i.description == name }
instance_eval(example_definition.example_block)
end
so it is possible to write things like
it should do something after another action do
given_it should successfully do another action
do_something.should be_fine
end
Is there anything already in rspec that allows me to do the same
stuff? Or was it a bad idea at all?
Yurii.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] given_it
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then I will have tens of methods that in fact has nothing really different from reused examples But, as methods, they are more clearly differentiated for reuse. The problem is that if I reuse an example, and then decide to change that example, I may accidentally change the meaning of other examples. This is possible w/ helper methods too, but I think it is less likely. You can keep pursuing this if you like, but I can tell you right now that it is very likely not going to happen. We already have a few different ways to deal w/ reuse and this one seems more confusing to me than helpful. FWIW, David On Sep 21, 2007, at 11:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to reuse stuff in your tests put those test methods in a separate module and include them into you specs Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] given_it
I have to agree with David. (It's in the contract ;)
Scenarios are reusable as steps in order to chain multiple scenarios
together (to describe the various coarse-grained stages of a workflow,
state machine or wizard, for example).
At an example level it is just confusing. I've noticed that if I find
myself wanting to do that, it's an indication that the objects are too
tightly coupled or dependent on one another. There is usually a cleaner
abstraction in there waiting to be discovered that will mean you don't
need to chain examples in this way.
fwiw GivenScenario was introduced into JBehave to work around the
constraint that scenarios were only allowed to be of the form
Given/When/Then in the early days. Then we relaxed scenarios to allow
mixing up steps in any order (given.. when.. then.. when.. then..) which
made them read much more naturally. GivenScenarios aren't used much now
other than in the specific situations I described above (state machines,
etc).
Cheers,
Dan
David Chelimsky wrote:
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
it should do #1 do
...
end
it should do X after #1 do
given_it should do #1
should do_x
end
it should do Y after #1 do
given_it should do #1
should do_y
end
it should do Z after #1 Y do
given_it should do Y after #1
should do_z
end
Sorry mate - that just seems like endless confusion - the examples
should never rely on each other that way - different animal from
scenarios that involve steps.
Or am I missing somethiing?
On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:49 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
Have you seen shared behaviours?
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Just decided to check whether I am doing something that makes sense
or not. I was thinking about how cool would it be to re-use examples
(just like we reuse story scenarios with GivenScenario). I was not
sure if this possibility already exists in rspec (and, honestly, was
lazy to check), so I have created this helper:
def given_it(name)
example_definition = behaviour.example_definitions.find{|i|
i.description == name }
instance_eval(example_definition.example_block)
end
so it is possible to write things like
it should do something after another action do
given_it should successfully do another action
do_something.should be_fine
end
Is there anything already in rspec that allows me to do the same
stuff? Or was it a bad idea at all?
Yurii.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] TextMate Bundle and exception when switching to alternate file.
sorry if this is something better suited to another list. I've encountered a strange problem with the RSpec.tmbundle in trunk - namely that it was raising an exception when pressing ctrl-shift-downarrow (switch between spec and source - Alternate File). I tracked down the issue to be handling of the file_type in switch_command.rb#content_for() - the code expected the type string to be just 'spec' when it can be 'view spec' or 'model spec' etc. Unfortunately I don't know whether this is just an issue with my local textmate install or if it is, in fact, a bug. Nope - it's a bug. I've experienced the same thing too. Scott ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] Getting Started with Story Runner
I'm trying to generate stories based on Dan North's example.
I'm not sure how to do this.
require File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), helper)
Story Account Holder withdraws cash, %{
As an Account Holder
I want to withdraw cash from an ATM
So that I can get money when the bank is closed
}, :type = RailsStory do
Scenario Account has sufficient funds do
Given the account balance is $, 100 do |amount|
@account = Account.new(:balance = 100)
end
And the card is valid do
@account.should_not have.error_on(:balance)
end
And the machine contains enough money do
@account.sufficient_funds?
end
When the Account Holder requests $, 20 do |amount|
@account.withdraw(amount)
end
Then the ATM should dispense $, 20 do |amount|
post /account/show, :account = {:amount = amount} #show the receipt
end
And the account balance should be $, 80 do
@account.balance.should be_eql(80)
end
And the card should be returned do
post account/index
end
end
Scenario Account has insufficient funds do; end
Scenario Card has been disabled do; end
Scenario The ATM has insufficient funds do; end
end
Scenario: Account has sufficient funds
Given the account balance is $ 100
F
Scenario: Account has insufficient funds
.
Scenario: Card has been disabled
.
Scenario: The ATM has insufficient funds
.
4 scenarios: 3 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 pending
FAILURES:
1) Account Holder withdraws cash (Account has sufficient funds) FAILED
NameError: uninitialized constant Account
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-1.4.2/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:266:in
`load_missing_constant'
When a failure occurs in a story does it always print out a heapstack or is
my code incorrect?
On 9/21/07, Evan David Light [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are also a couple of examples buried in the trunk
under examples/story/game-of-life/behaviour/stories
On Sep 20, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Andrew WC Brown wrote:
I'm guessing their isn't a generator for stories yet?
./script/generate story add_person
On 9/20/07, James Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/20/07, Ben Mabey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew WC Brown wrote:
I haven't found any How To's to use story runner and I'm not sure
how
to get started.
Should I be looking for resources on how to use rbehave?
How do I generate my first Story?
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Pat wrote up an awesome tutorial/example:
http://evang.eli.st/blog/2007/9/1/user-stories-with-rspec-s-story-runner
That should get you started.
This pastie may be of use as well:
http://pastie.caboo.se/92472
James
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
--
Monsterbox Productions
putting small businesses on-line
1319 Victoria Avenue East
Thunder Bay, Ontario P7C 1C3
Canada
Andrew WC Brown
web-developer and owner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P: 807-626-9009
F: 807-624-2705
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Re: [rspec-users] TextMate Bundle and exception when switching to alternate file.
Yeah, I've filed a patch for it - #14140 Regards, Trevor On 9/21/07, Scott Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope - it's a bug. I've experienced the same thing too. Scott -- -- Trevor Squires http://somethinglearned.com ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
