Hi Scott,
Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
confused still is that it seems like, at least if your system is
starting to get larger, you'd really *want* your fast unit test to help
you catch API changes like this to help you make updates faster.
Having to run
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
Hi Scott,
Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
confused still is that it seems like, at least if your system is
starting to get larger, you'd really *want* your fast unit test to
help
you catch API changes like
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Scott Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
Hi Scott,
Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
confused still is that it seems like, at least if your system is
starting to get larger,
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:14 AM, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
Hi Scott,
Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
confused still is that it seems like, at least if your system is
starting to get larger, you'd really *want* your
Why don't we have a partial mock which will raise an error (or at
least a warning) when stubbing an object who's class doesn't
respond_to? the method given? I feel like this sort of simple
dependency has been brought up 1000 times on the list before, but
never been explicitly stated.
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:17 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Scott Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
Hi Scott,
Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
confused still is that it seems like, at
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:17 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Scott Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
Hi Scott,
Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
confused still is that it seems like, at
The spec
it should expose a newly created logo as @logo do
Logo.should_receive(:new).with({'these' =
'params'}).and_return(mock_logo(:save =
Matt Wynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pat - are you going solo too?
Nope, I'm trying to teach RSpec/BDD to an organization that currently
doesn't use it and has 0% test coverage. It's interesting, to say the
least. They're good devs, but even so, the effects of not writing tests
first (or even
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 14:47 +0800, Leon Du wrote:
The spec
it should expose a newly created logo as @logo do
Thanks for your reply, I did move the code to before
before(:each) do
Logo.stub!(:new).and_return(mock_logo(:save = true, :company= = nil))
end
2008/10/30 Hans de Graaff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 14:47 +0800, Leon Du wrote:
The spec
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:43 AM, aidy lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Alsak,
2008/10/27 Aslak Hellesøy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What version/revision?
I am on 0.1.7; I guess I need to upgrade. If this is the case, will I
need to use the Trunk or is there a gem?
Changelog:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:35, Pat Maddox wrote:
Matt Wynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pat - are you going solo too?
Nope, I'm trying to teach RSpec/BDD to an organization that currently
doesn't use it and has 0% test coverage. It's interesting, to say the
least. They're good devs, but even so,
I'd rather have it be a known problem, but a consistent problem, then
a partially solved problem that will inevitably cause more pain that
it does today :)
+1
This is one of the down-sides of working in a dynamic language. We
have to suck it up, IMO.
Now, here's what I don't understand:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:39 PM, aidy lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have different projects with features related to those projects in
different folders
/project_1
/project_2
/steps
The steps cover both projects
How do I get Cucumber to require all features within both
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Matt Wynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:35, Pat Maddox wrote:
Matt Wynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pat - are you going solo too?
Nope, I'm trying to teach RSpec/BDD to an organization that currently
doesn't use it and has 0% test coverage.
Aslak made a good point earlier this thread with don't write specs
just cuz, but perhaps this fact is sufficient cuz to motivate.
WDYT?
There's something else here (nothing to do with testing rails
controllers, but testing in general) about the psychological blockage
to working up the
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Matt Wynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aslak made a good point earlier this thread with don't write specs
just cuz, but perhaps this fact is sufficient cuz to motivate.
WDYT?
There's something else here (nothing to do with testing rails controllers,
but testing
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:46 AM, David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Matt Wynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:35, Pat Maddox wrote:
Matt Wynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pat - are you going solo too?
Nope, I'm trying to teach
Last night it seemed like the mailing list was playing catchup, as I got a
flood of emails from the past few days. Has anyone else seen this?
--
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com
___
rspec-users mailing list
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Zach Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last night it seemed like the mailing list was playing catchup, as I got a
flood of emails from the past few days. Has anyone else seen this?
Yep. Right in the middle of trying to wrap up a chapter in the rspec book!
Ended
On 2008-10-28, at 10:52, Rémi Gagnon wrote:
Let's see, I want to spec the :conditions args to make sure the right
args is passed to the query.
Product.find(:all,
:conditions = [inte_no = ? and vaat_id_type_statut_pcpa = ?,
inte_no, 7],
:limit = 2,
:order = trns_dt_appl_prod desc)
On 2008-10-30, at 10:56, Zach Dennis wrote:
Last night it seemed like the mailing list was playing catchup, as I
got a flood of emails from the past few days. Has anyone else seen
this?
Yup! When I checked my email this morning, I found 61 new messages
from the rspec-users ML.
Rémi Gagnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's see, I want to spec the :conditions args to make sure the right
args is passed to the query.
Product.find(:all,
:conditions = [inte_no = ? and vaat_id_type_statut_pcpa = ?,
inte_no, 7],
:limit = 2,
:order = trns_dt_appl_prod
I do agree, That's what we're gonna do. it was just an example.
But what if we want to test find_thingy(in model spec) to make sure the
:conditions is set properly?
R
Pat Maddox wrote:
Rémi Gagnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Product.should_receive(:find).with(:conditions =
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Rémi Gagnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do agree, That's what we're gonna do. it was just an example.
But what if we want to test find_thingy(in model spec) to make sure the
:conditions is set properly?
You are probably more interested in the fact that
On 30 Oct 2008, at 15:58, Zach Dennis wrote:
I know the above example breaks the one assertion per test guideline
people strive to adhere to, but I think it is ok. If there are more
examples that should be used to make sure find_thingy works then I'd
break out a separate describe block and
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:02 PM, aidy lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have a Given step that fails: For that Scenario the remaining
Given's, When, and Then's are reported as being skipped, even though
theses steps have been executed.
Why I am not submitting this to Lighthouse, is that
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:07 PM, David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is absolutely by design. If a step passes or fails after another
has failed, you have no way of knowing if it would still pass or fail
once the other one is passing. Cucumber reports the first problem in a
David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Matt Wynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:35, Pat Maddox wrote:
Matt Wynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pat - are you going solo too?
Nope, I'm trying to teach RSpec/BDD to an organization that
Matt Wynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 30 Oct 2008, at 15:58, Zach Dennis wrote:
I know the above example breaks the one assertion per test guideline
people strive to adhere to, but I think it is ok. If there are more
examples that should be used to make sure find_thingy works then I'd
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Pat Maddox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, I take back my previous comment. Where would you stub a
method on an object where the method *isn't* even loaded by further
(or previous) stubbing?
Any concrete examples
On Oct 30, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
Scott Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, I take back my previous comment. Where would you stub a
method on an object where the method *isn't* even loaded by further
(or previous) stubbing?
Any concrete examples come to mind?
How
I'm in the process of trying to get updated to rspec-1.1.11(from
1.1.1). I have a couple of places where I was trying to verify that a
particular collaboration was made inside a transaction. My general
strategy was to start off using something like Transaction.stub!
(:execute).and_yield in
You're right, the behavior did change. Now when you have a
should_receive that shadows a previous stub, it returns or yields the
original value.
I don't know a way to turn off the yielding in the should_receive,
I'll look at putting something in. In the mean time, if you stub the
method again
No idea why you couldn't pass a flag for regression testing:
mock(Foo, :check_methods = true)
Scott
It seems to me this way, too - though I'm obviously biased. :)
It's true that a lot of the dynamic stuff could be problematic - what if
the flag was only for checking methods directly
I am having a very frustrating problem running specs on my current
project. When I run tests en masse with rake spec or with autotest,
it frequently quits without completing all the tests. It also
sometimes runs the tests in multiple batches, giving more than one
result line for a single batch
On Oct 30, 2008, at 8:21 PM, Evan Dorn wrote:
I am having a very frustrating problem running specs on my current
project. When I run tests en masse with rake spec or with autotest,
it frequently quits without completing all the tests. It also
sometimes runs the tests in multiple batches,
On Oct 30, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Sebastian W. wrote:
No idea why you couldn't pass a flag for regression testing:
mock(Foo, :check_methods = true)
Scott
It seems to me this way, too - though I'm obviously biased. :)
It's true that a lot of the dynamic stuff could be problematic -
what if
39 matches
Mail list logo
