Hi
I can't seem to get rspec and autotest to work in a small test
project. The spec command doesn't load the implementation file. I
found some info about non-rails projects with rspec, but these did not
solve my problem.
I have the following files:
project_map/
lib/todoist.rb
On Feb 16, 2008 8:51 AM, Ivo Dancet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I can't seem to get rspec and autotest to work in a small test
> project. The spec command doesn't load the implementation file. I
> found some info about non-rails projects with rspec, but these did not
> solve my problem.
>
>
That was very quick, thanks!
No, I was not (and it works when I require the file), I thought rspec
would have some method to load the implementation file (as I followed
the naming convention) like it does in rails.
Op 16-feb-08, om 14:59 heeft David Chelimsky het volgende geschreven:
> On Fe
On Feb 16, 2008 9:10 AM, Ivo Dancet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was very quick, thanks!
>
> No, I was not (and it works when I require the file), I thought rspec
> would have some method to load the implementation file (as I followed
> the naming convention) like it does in rails.
What misle
On Feb 15, 2008 6:06 PM, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I seem to remember when I was running a previous version of rspec and
> autotest that when a set of specs passed for some changed files, that all
> of the specs would then be run automatically. Particularly when tests had
> previously fail
Op 16-feb-08, om 15:13 heeft David Chelimsky het volgende geschreven:
> On Feb 16, 2008 9:10 AM, Ivo Dancet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That was very quick, thanks!
>>
>> No, I was not (and it works when I require the file), I thought rspec
>> would have some method to load the implementation f
On Feb 16, 2008 11:07 AM, Ivo Dancet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Op 16-feb-08, om 15:13 heeft David Chelimsky het volgende geschreven:
>
> > On Feb 16, 2008 9:10 AM, Ivo Dancet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> That was very quick, thanks!
> >>
> >> No, I was not (and it works when I require the f
On Feb 16, 2008 1:21 PM, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:13:51 +, Steve wrote:
> > What was the nature of the changes. I just updated to r3312, and when I
> > run autotest I get:
> >
> > loading autotest/rails_rspec
> > /usr/bin/ruby1.8 -S script/spec -O spec/spec.opts
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:23:53 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2008 6:06 PM, Steve
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I seem to remember when I was running a previous version of rspec and
>> autotest that when a set of specs passed for some changed files, that
>> all of the specs would then
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:13:51 +, Steve wrote:
> What was the nature of the changes. I just updated to r3312, and when I
> run autotest I get:
>
> loading autotest/rails_rspec
> /usr/bin/ruby1.8 -S script/spec -O spec/spec.opts No
> server is running
>
> I've never seen the "No server is runn
Op 16-feb-08, om 19:26 heeft Steve het volgende geschreven:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:06:00 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>> The rspec/rails plugin works because there are generators which
>> create
>> the files for you, not because of any auto-loading facility. The
>> generated files have re
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:06:00 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> The rspec/rails plugin works because there are generators which create
> the files for you, not because of any auto-loading facility. The
> generated files have require statements that get you the right stuff.
>
> We could conceivably
On Feb 16, 2008 1:56 PM, Ivo Dancet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Op 16-feb-08, om 19:26 heeft Steve het volgende geschreven:
>
> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:06:00 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:
> >>
> >> The rspec/rails plugin works because there are generators which
> >> create
> >> the files for yo
I wanted to thank all the developers working a great testing
framework. We switched to rspec on our last project, and haven't
looked back.
I know testing views is a touchy subject for some. After having a
surprisingly great time using them on one of our projects, we decided
to adopt it for
Consider:
module X
def initialize(a)
super()
end
end
describe X do
it "is a module" do
X.should be_instance_of(Module)
end
end
This generates an error because #describe tries to include X into the
test harness and the test harness doesn't know about the extra
argument
On Feb 16, 2008 5:19 PM, Gary Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Consider:
>
> module X
>def initialize(a)
> super()
>end
> end
>
> describe X do
>
>it "is a module" do
> X.should be_instance_of(Module)
>end
> end
>
> This generates an error because #describe tries to inc
I'm not sure of what the community stance is on this, but is there a
builtin way to include helpers in view specs? Is this practice shunned?
My thoughts on the matter are that I expect my views to have a specific
output, and sometimes it would be much easier to call the helper function
in the v
On Feb 16, 2008, at 6:10 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> That was done initially to support Rails helper specs. As it turns
> out, I usually wrap add a #helper method that returns self in those
> cases to make it explicit. So I'm not sure of it's value, but removing
> it (unfortunately) would probabl
18 matches
Mail list logo
