Hello everybody,
I've been using RSpec as a tool to create web applications for some time
now, in Rails, and using plain Ruby with WEBrick as well. The tool suits my
needs and the story runner is great.
Now there are things that aren't solvable on the web, you'll need a _real_
desktop application f
When specing observers I usually put them into models directory under /
spec. Then, when specs are run observer class can't be found unless I
remove --load-by mtime from spec.opts.
My question is what's the Big Idea behind loading specs in that order
by default? Shouldn't default spec.opts co
Matthijs Langenberg wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I've been using RSpec as a tool to create web applications for some time
> now, in Rails, and using plain Ruby with WEBrick as well. The tool suits
> my needs and the story runner is great.
> Now there are things that aren't solvable on the web,
Rspec is all about using natural language to define behavior. In this
context, I feel that lambda is sorely out of place. I was chatting on
#irc and a pal of mine (wycats) proposed an interesting alternative:
alias_method :doing, :lambda
so instead of something like
lambda {post :create, {:title
On Nov 18, 2007 12:40 AM, Steven Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rspec is all about using natural language to define behavior. In this
> context, I feel that lambda is sorely out of place. I was chatting on
> #irc and a pal of mine (wycats) proposed an interesting alternative:
>
> alias_method
On Nov 17, 2007 5:40 PM, Steven Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rspec is all about using natural language to define behavior. In this
> context, I feel that lambda is sorely out of place. I was chatting on
> #irc and a pal of mine (wycats) proposed an interesting alternative:
>
> alias_method :
On Nov 17, 2007 5:59 PM, aslak hellesoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2007 12:40 AM, Steven Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rspec is all about using natural language to define behavior. In this
> > context, I feel that lambda is sorely out of place. I was chatting on
> > #irc and a
Well that's just cumbersome, and actually not the point of my discussion. I
rather discuss about the ways we could use RSpec to create an application
based on RubyCocoa (for example), instead of discussing about what types of
software can't work on the web, alright?
On Nov 17, 2007 10:51 PM, M. Ed
I am not sure why the tests don't see the call of the new method for the
Address class. It can be seen in the controller method where the
Address.new is called.
>> @address = Address.new(params[:address])
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for the help.
Here is the error message:
Spec::Mocks::MockEx
On Nov 17, 2007, at 10:52 PM, Chris Olsen wrote:
> I am not sure why the tests don't see the call of the new method
> for the
> Address class. It can be seen in the controller method where the
> Address.new is called.
>>> @address = Address.new(params[:address])
>
> What am I doing wrong?
>
Y
On Nov 17, 2007, at 6:59 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2007 12:40 AM, Steven Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Rspec is all about using natural language to define behavior. In this
>> context, I feel that lambda is sorely out of place. I was chatting on
>> #irc and a pal of mine (wyca
>> Address.should_receive(:new).with(no_args).and_return @address
That doesn't seem to work either. I had also tried with :any and that
failed as well.
It does seem to work when removing the .with() call though.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
Try with(nil)
I think params[:user] will return nil.
On Nov 17, 2007, at 8:18 PM, __iso __ wrote:
>>> Address.should_receive(:new).with(no_args).and_return @address
>
> That doesn't seem to work either. I had also tried with :any and that
> failed as well.
>
> It does seem to work when removin
Steve Ross wrote:
> Try with(nil)
>
> I think params[:user] will return nil.
yip that works, after fooling with it I also found that :any_args works
as well as any (I guess this one is more than just a symbol)
Thanks for the help.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On Nov 18, 2007, at 12:04 AM, Chris Olsen wrote:
> Steve Ross wrote:
>> Try with(nil)
>>
>> I think params[:user] will return nil.
>
> yip that works, after fooling with it I also found that :any_args
> works
> as well as any (I guess this one is more than just a symbol)
>
> Thanks for the help
15 matches
Mail list logo