This is what I was trying to accomplish
Then I should see "My product name"
And I should see "My product description"
And I should see "My product name was successfully saved."
After reading all the comments above, the follwing step name solves my
problem
Then /I should see "(.*?)"$/ do |text|
Thanks to a pointer from lizkeogh.com site I've been discovering the joy
of the Mockito (http://mockito.org/) mocking framework for Java. It
verifies behaviour after the action. It struck me how this matched the
format I use in my Ruby cucumber features. Within Rspec if we could use
post behaviour
>>> Then /I should see "(.*)" in the page/ do |text|
>
> That should raise an AmbiguousStep error if you also have /I should
> see "(.*)"/.
Oops sorry, thanks for spotting that David.
It seems that it would be good practice to use $ and ^ in all your
regular expression steps in order to minimis
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:09 AM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks to a pointer from lizkeogh.com site I've been discovering the joy
> of the Mockito (http://mockito.org/) mocking framework for Java. It
> verifies behaviour after the action. It struck me how this matched the
> format
> So I'm proposing the idea of adding 'should_have_received' and test_spy
> in Rspec:
>
> ---
> x = test_spy('like a mock but more into espionage')
>
> #Action which does not fail on unexpected method but just records calls.
> some.action(x)
>
> x.should_have_received(:method).and_returned_with('so
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So I'm proposing the idea of adding 'should_have_received' and test_spy
>> in Rspec:
>>
>> ---
>> x = test_spy('like a mock but more into espionage')
>>
>> #Action which does not fail on unexpected method but just records cal
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then /I should see "(.*)" in the page/ do |text|
>>
>> That should raise an AmbiguousStep error if you also have /I should
>> see "(.*)"/.
>
> Oops sorry, thanks for spotting that David.
>
> It seems that it would be good
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:43 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> So I'm proposing the idea of adding 'should_have_received' and test_spy
>>> in Rspec:
>>>
>>> ---
>>> x = test_spy('like a mock but more into espi
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:40 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then /I should see "(.*)" in the page/ do |text|
>>>
>>> That should raise an AmbiguousStep error if you also have /I should
>>> see "(.*)"/.
>
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:18 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:09 AM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks to a pointer from lizkeogh.com site I've been discovering the joy
>> of the Mockito (http://mockito.org/) mocking framework for Java. It
>>
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:49 AM, aslak hellesoy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:40 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Then /I should see "(.*)" in the page/ do |text|
That
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:56 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:49 AM, aslak hellesoy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:40 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTE
David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> You can still use non-regular expression steps in Cucumber:
>>
>> I've been unable to think of a good example where I would want only a
>> partial match of a step. Throwing away the unmatched char
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> You can still use non-regular expression steps in Cucumber:
>>>
>>> I've been unable to think of a good example where I
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:13 AM, aslak hellesoy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
You can still use non-regular expressio
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:21 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:13 AM, aslak hellesoy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> David Chelimsky wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Jose
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:27 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:21 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:13 AM, aslak hellesoy
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECT
David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:21 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> anyone have good examples where they would?
>>> you just stick a $ at the end of the Regexp?
>>>
>>> That's how regexen work. I don't see why they should work any
>>> differently when used
>I like this much better. -Guiding people to use regexen properly is
>better than redefining their semantics.
Well put. Do you mind if I add this David?
Thanks,
Joseph Wilk
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Cucumber---Ambiguous-steps-tp19480001p19493430.html
Sent from th
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Joseph Wilk-2
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I like this much better. -Guiding people to use regexen properly is
>>better than redefining their semantics.
>
> Well put. Do you mind if I add this David?
Well - it turns out that this is slightly more complicated. The
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:00 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Joseph Wilk-2
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>I like this much better. -Guiding people to use regexen properly is
>>>better than redefining their semantics.
>>
>> Well put. Do you mind
It's all gone a bit meta.
I've started noticing patterns in my specs, where I want more than
one class to satisfy a specific bunch of behaviours.
I know I can use it_should_behave_like and this works in simple
cases, but I want to be able to iterate around an array of values and
generate
I'm trying to test some of my helpers. I have one helper (in module
LocationsHelper) that calls a helper/method in ApplicationHelper. If I
include ApplicationHelper and LocationHelper in my spec, and then I call the
helper using the "helper." scope:
helper.location_tree('Portland')
then it com
>Doesn't RR already support test spy?
I don't believe so. There is nothing on the github page or anything I
can spot in the current code in git. The github docs do mention it as
something they are aiming to do.
> o = stub("stub", :foo => true)
> o.foo
> o.should have_received(:foo)
That sounds
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Christopher Bailey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to test some of my helpers. I have one helper (in module
> LocationsHelper) that calls a helper/method in ApplicationHelper. If I
> include ApplicationHelper and LocationHelper in my spec, and then I call
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Doesn't RR already support test spy?
> I don't believe so. There is nothing on the github page or anything I
> can spot in the current code in git. The github docs do mention it as
> something they are aiming to do.
>
>> o =
Hey all,
I've got some code that I (mostly) inherited. It essentially has a
couple of AR class methods that look for a specific record by id:
class Project < ActiveRecord::Base
class << self
def specific_project
@another_specific_project ||= Project.find(10) if
Project.exists?(1
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Tim Glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I've got some code that I (mostly) inherited. It essentially has a couple of
> AR class methods that look for a specific record by id:
>
> class Project < ActiveRecord::Base
> class << self
>def specific_projec
Tim Glen wrote:
> 1. Is there a way to stub out the model to return some fixture-type
> records?
> 2. Does anyone have an idea as to how we could refactor this into a
> better pattern? Those 2 "projects" are pretty specific to the
> production data and will "never be edited," but it still doesn't m
If I don't include them, then the helpers in LocationsHelper can't find/use
the helpers in ApplicationHelper. Maybe this will help illustrate:
test code:
describe LocationsHelper do
describe "location tree" do
it "should not show siblings for state, country, or root level
locations" do
Thankyou Chad and Aslak, those patches seem to have worked perfectly
- time to apply the threshold crank! [rubs hands gleefully]
On 13 Sep 2008, at 16:50, Chad Humphries wrote:
I've got a version of rcov up at github (sudo gem install
spicycode-rcov --source=http://gems.github.com/) incorpora
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Glen wrote:
>> 1. Is there a way to stub out the model to return some fixture-type
>> records?
>> 2. Does anyone have an idea as to how we could refactor this into a
>> better pattern? Those 2 "projects" are pretty specif
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Glen wrote:
>> 1. Is there a way to stub out the model to return some fixture-type
>> records?
>> 2. Does anyone have an idea as to how we could refactor this into a
>> better pattern? Those 2 "projects" are pretty speci
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Doesn't RR already support test spy?
>> I don't believe so. There is nothing on the github page or anything I
>> can spot in the current code in git.
Hi,
suggestions how to add w3 validation to a story step?
eg
Then the page should be valid
tia
linoj
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Jonathan Linowes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> suggestions how to add w3 validation to a story step?
> eg
> Then the page should be valid
>
You could write a "then" step that takes the current response.body,
uploads it to the w3 validator, and checks the the r
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Christopher Bailey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I don't include them, then the helpers in LocationsHelper can't find/use
> the helpers in ApplicationHelper. Maybe this will help illustrate:
> test code:
> describe LocationsHelper do
> describe "location tree"
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Doesn't RR already support test spy?
> I don't believe so. There is nothing on the github page or anything I
> can spot in the current code in git. The github docs do mention it as
> something they are aiming to do.
No, spies
Thanks, that did the trick.
And for including ApplicationHelper, I would say it should include it -
because that would parallel Rails' standard behavior.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:34 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Christopher Bailey
> <[EMAIL PRO
Please help me to understand why runner is not picking steps.
http://pastie.org/273126
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On 15 Sep 2008, at 23:16, Zach Dennis wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Jonathan Linowes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
suggestions how to add w3 validation to a story step?
eg
Then the page should be valid
You could write a "then" step that takes the current response.body,
uploads it
On 15 Sep 2008, at 21:14, Tim Glen wrote:
Hey all,
I've got some code that I (mostly) inherited. It essentially has a
couple of AR class methods that look for a specific record by id:
class Project < ActiveRecord::Base
class << self
def specific_project
@another_specific_project
42 matches
Mail list logo
