Hi
I recently did a coding kata and ran into some strange behaviour. The code is
here[1], the weirdness under the comment Doesn't work... RSpec bug?.
Basically, all the `subject` / `its(:sequence)` examples seem to work, except
the one split into the two contexts. In this case
On 20 Aug 2010, at 06:40, Myron Marston wrote:
describe VCR::HttpStubbingAdapters::FakeWeb do
it_should_behave_like 'an http stubbing adapter', ['net/http'],
[:method, :uri, :host]
end
describe VCR::HttpStubbingAdapters::WebMock do
it_should_behave_like 'an http stubbing adapter',
On 18 Aug 2010, at 15:06, Chris Flipse wrote:
Check for a .rspec file in one project, not the other.
Aha! You're a genius :D
I need to stop TextMate hiding stuff like that...
Cheers
Ash
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran
On 14 Aug 2010, at 11:34, Mike Howson wrote:
Just wondered what people thoughts are to testing module's to be
included in mixin's? Seems to me there are two main approaches:-
Hi Mike
I've been doing a lot of this sort of coding lately, as I've been extracting
duplicated code into a
On 13 Aug 2010, at 22:16, Don French wrote:
Not sure what you meant by did you turn it off and on again?
Ah, I just meant I was running out of ideas[1].
The other information is here:
http://pastie.org/1091155
All I can suggest is maybe updating RVM and trying in Ruby 1.9.2 with a fresh
On 14 Aug 2010, at 18:49, Don French wrote:
Thought that was what you meant, but did not want to leave anything
untried. I have updated to 1.9.2-rc2. same problem. I am going to
have to do an update to snow leopard soon, may try it and put new code
on not just restore.
I wish I could help
On Aug 12, 2010, at 11:09 pm, Don French wrote:
yep: Autotest.add_discovery {rspec2}
in the base project directory
I'm at the point of asking did you turn it off and on again? :-/
Can you give your Ruby installation details? (versions etc, ideally the output
of `rvm info` and `gem list`
On 12 Aug 2010, at 04:30, David Chelimsky wrote:
I think they should all be registered in the same place, in rspec-core. Or
are you saying that rspec-rails would take the responsibility of registering
the names for rspec-rails, rails, test/unit and minitest? That makes sense to
me, as
On 11 Aug 2010, at 19:44, Don French wrote:
Any help on this. I think I have read all posts related to autotest
but still do not have the answer. Is there something that works better
with Rspec that autotest?
When you say and a prompt (back) ... do you mean autotest exits in both
situations
On 9 Aug 2010, at 17:37, Rick DeNatale wrote:
Well, I'd still use a different file name suffix which I could set
textmate to recognize as a spec
_sspec.rb or _sgroup.rb
something like that.
Hi Rick,
I think that was what David was saying? (If I understood you both correctly,
that
On 8 Aug 2010, at 21:53, Phillip Koebbe wrote:
I don't think you are alone in your quest to achieve greater organization. I
am guessing that in your suggested RSpec folder structure, the current
folders of controllers|helpers|models|views would all live under examples? I
might go for
On 9 Aug 2010, at 13:49, David Chelimsky wrote:
Yes, eval'd in order. No, not explicitly stated, but I think it should be.
Want to submit a patch with a spec for this?
Sure - I've made an action to write a spec for this. I guess the
implementation is not likely to change any time soon so
On 10 Aug 2010, at 15:03, Rick DeNatale wrote:
And easy to add yourself by just editing the bundle.
I've tried this before. Unfortunately, it just leads to pain when you try to
update the bundle via Git
Or... how about an actual dot-suffix, .rspec, eg,
active_record_associations.rspec,
Hi
I was just about to replace a `before` block along the lines of:
before(:each) do
@cti_b_id = service.create(name: Item-B)
@cti_z_id = service.create(name: Z-Item)
@cti_a_id = service.create(name: Item-A)
# ...
end
with
let!(:cti_b_id) { ... }
let!(:cti_z_id) { ...
On Aug 08, 2010, at 12:00 am, David Chelimsky wrote:
Yes:
http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/commit/c2e8a3947321e501b84113c1b2b1049df4868f4b
Cool, ta :) I'll update my code shortly.
Cheers
Ash
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran
On Aug 08, 2010, at 2:17 am, Phillip Koebbe wrote:
I have developed a system in which I require model_helper.rb in model specs,
controller_helper.rb in controllers, and (you guessed it!) view_helper.rb in
view specs. Each of those then require spec_helper.rb. I did this because I
wanted
On 8 Aug 2010, at 12:05, Matt Wynne wrote:
And you override it using let(:foo), which would be a perfectly reasonable
way to handle it. In fact, it would be the way I would handle in
instinctively, because now I don't have to wrote my own memoization handling
into the method.
I
On 7 Aug 2010, at 22:10, David Chelimsky wrote:
So - what should we do? I don't think changing Minitest is really an option,
as too many assertion libraries already wrap Minitest assertions. I don't
think RSpec should be in the business of monitoring methods end-users define
to make sure
Hi
I've tried using the autotest file from RSpec 2 (lib/autotest/rspec2.rb) but
I've found a problem with it, that I think is a bug.
The file contains two sections
* an Autotest `Autotest.add_hook :initialize` block
* an Autotest class Autotest::Rspec2
In one project I'm working on, the code
Hi
Did the RSpec TMBundle ever have multiple ways of recognising RSpec files? I'm
convinced it user to look for spec_helper on the first line. The Ruby bundle
does something similar, as it looks for firstLineMatch = '^#!/.*\bruby';
The reason I ask is because I now have several files that
On Aug 04, 2010, at 12:41 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
What happens if the shared spec author really wants it to just be a hash? Do
you think that's a valid use case?
It could get in the way, then, I guess. You'd always have the original hash
parameter if you wanted to use the method, but I
On Aug 05, 2010, at 4:28 am, David Chelimsky wrote:
At this point, the customization block is still being eval'd after the shared
block, and I'm fairly well convinced this is the right thing, in combination
with params to the block.
I don't think it makes any different any more, at least
On Aug 06, 2010, at 1:24 am, Myron Marston wrote:
It's the difference between an instance variable of a Class instance
(since Classes are objects, too), and an instance variable of an
instance of a class.
I talked a .Net dev friend of mine through instance ivar + class ivar + class
On Aug 06, 2010, at 3:52 am, ct9a wrote:
Reading up on the Rspec's main site, the main example in
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec/1.3.0/ does not show any use of
assert_equals. Rather it just uses the == comparison operators.
Here's an extract:
assert_equals is part of Test::Unit, not
On Aug 06, 2010, at 11:58 am, David Chelimsky wrote:
Barring the unforeseen, I'll knock out beta.20 this weekend.
Cool, ta!
Cheers
Ash
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran
___
rspec-users mailing list
On 6 Aug 2010, at 18:28, Subhash Mishra wrote:
Cucumber has its own mailing list/user group:
http://groups.google.com/group/cukes.
I'd recommend asking there, though you'll probably want to be a bit more
specific about your question.
Cheers,
David
Thanx,
Well as far as concern of
On 4 Aug 2010, at 1:05 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
I actually like contract a lot. Maybe we'll need alias_shared_examples_for_to
:)
Haha, actually that gets +1 from me! Should I file a ticket? :)
In general I like contract, I just wasn't sure it was the right word for this
usage of shared
On 4 Aug 2010, at 7:55 AM, Myron Marston wrote:
Ashley: thanks for posting the example. It's nice to see how this all
fits together.
Arguably it would have made more sense to post that example *before*, rather
than expecting you all to read my mind :)
I'm pleased with how it's working out
On 4 Aug 2010, at 1:05 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
One other thought I've had is keyword syntax. While currently I'm writing:
it_satisfies_contract [Entity] Collection:, :children, :child, Child.name
I prefer keyword arguments, so I'd like to write:
it_satisfies_contract [Entity]
On 3 Aug 2010, at 12:50 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
Pushed:
http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/commit/84303616be1ac2f8126675488947b47f6945cebe
http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/commit/3cea7b8bea51766d632e20bcc9ef15c64b719ea1
Awesomeness!
Please do let me know if this works with what
On Aug 01, 2010, at 11:52 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
re: 1.8.6, we've got a home-grown implementation of instance_exec that runs
in 1.8.6 (although I just discovered that it's broken - fix coming shortly).
I could
a) add such a thing for module_exec as well, though I haven't quite
On 2 Aug 2010, at 1:08 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
But what about people who are, for what ever reasons, stuck with Ruby 1.8.6
and want to upgrade? Also, there are a few rspec-2 + rails-2 efforts in the
works, and there will be a solution for this sometime this fall.
We need to support
On 2 Aug 2010, at 2:04 AM, Myron Marston wrote:
I actually find the use of this to be a bit confusing:
[:foo, :bar].each do |arg|
it_should_behave_like Something, arg do |a|
# The value of the param is already bound to arg and now it's
bound to a, too.
end
end
I suppose it may
On 2 Aug 2010, at 4:08 AM, Myron Marston wrote:
Backports (a library that implements features of later versions of
ruby in 1.8.6) implements it in a similar fashion:
http://github.com/marcandre/backports/blob/v1.18.1/lib/backports/1.8.7/module.rb
Conceivably, RSpec 2 could depend on
On 1 Aug 2010, at 11:52 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
re: order of evaluation of blocks, I think I'm inclined to go one way one
minute, and another the next. Somebody convince me of one or the other.
One thing that may help clear this up is: can anyone offer a concrete example
of where
On Jul 31, 2010, at 7:06 pm, Myron Marston wrote:
I think this is a clunky way to essentially pass a parameter to the
shared example group. Better would be something like this:
it_should_behave_like something do
providing :method_name, :foo
end
After sleeping on this, I found an
On 1 Aug 2010, at 3:43 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
shared_examples_for blah do |a,b|
...
end
it_should_behave_like blah, 1, 2
That wouldn't have worked with the old implementation, but it would work
perfectly well now. This would also just work with hash-as-keyword-args:
On 31 Jul 2010, at 1:10 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
You can still get the same outcome, but you have to implement it in the group
like this:
unless defined?(:foo)
def foo; foo; end
end
Maybe a DSL method while I'm working on it? Maybe:
default_helper(:foo) do
foo
end
WDYT?
On 31 Jul 2010, at 2:08 AM, nruth wrote:
If I want to set up a context to run some examples in (models created
with machinist, associations, etc) then the before block makes it
clear that that's the state the examples are running against, and the
@vars give me a (quick and dirty?) hook to
On 31 Jul 2010, at 2:08 AM, nruth wrote:
Re: error / warning message, at the same scope (i.e. an accident, as
in the op) then yes that could be quite useful for spotting mistakes.
I'm not so sure about in different blocks though, it's probably
intentional there (different context).
I forgot
On 31 Jul 2010, at 7:06 PM, Myron Marston wrote:
Good point--I hadn't thought of that. The one issue I see with it is
that the author of the shared example group may not have knowledge of
which helper methods consumers will need to override. So he/she
either defines all helper methods that
Hi
I finally looked into why this is not currently possibly in RSpec 2 (beta 19):
shared_examples_for Etymology do
describe The etymology of foo do
it is followed by #{after_foo} do
# ...
end
end
end
describe foo, focus: true do
it_should_behave_like
On 30 Jul 2010, at 5:00 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
By all means.
I've started on that and filed a ticket[1].
One question I have, is I keep calling the Example Group that uses a shared
block the host group. Is there already a name for it? I never know what to
use, and I'm not sure host
On 30 Jul 2010, at 10:00 PM, nruth wrote:
http://gist.github.com/501296
I don't think anything needs to change, though a wrapper function
(each + an inner describe) might help flag it as a possible pitfall.
Hi Nick
I think the before + ivar pattern (below) is on its way out. At least, I
Hi again
As part of the refactoring I'm doing, I'm writing out quite a bit of
metaprogramming. The easiest way to prove constant lookup is working is to
create a new class in an example group, and use its name. But the scope of the
example group definition appears to be the containing
On Jul 26, 2010, at 8:55 am, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
Seems to me that including the same shared example group twice in the same
describe block is a bit of an abuse, to be honest. I don't think it was
ever really intended to be used in that way.
You're right, it clearly wasn't intended for
On Jul 26, 2010, at 3:44 pm, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
Personally I wouldn't do this. It makes it harder for anybody coming to your
project to understand what's going on, because they see this contract 'foo'
do construct and don't know what it is unless they dig into your
spec_helper. If
On Jul 26, 2010, at 5:12 pm, Bruno Cardoso wrote:
Not sure if this is a RSpec problem or Rails but I believe is more a
RSpec situation.
What happens is that when I run my RSpecs tests all the BD is recreated,
...
Anyone know how to resolve this?
Hi Bruno
Are you running `rake spec`
On 26 Jul 2010, at 6:36 PM, Bruno Cardoso wrote:
What both solutions (from Ashley and David) do is not modify the BD in
anyway, so nothing gets dropped and nothing is created. This resolves
the problem but what if I want a clean installation in each test run? Is
there a way to keep my
On 21 Jul 2010, at 10:28 PM, Costa Shapiro wrote:
(Surprisingly?) I find mocking AR (DM less so) in specs extremely tedious
_and_ intrusive.
Yeah, I know what you mean, I just don't do it any more. I find the pain isn't
worth it on the stuff I do.
I think the README there pretty much
On 24 Jul 2010, at 2:52 PM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
How about this:
f.stub.existing(:bar)
That's probably RR influencing me there, which employs things like
stub.proxy and so on. So maybe not such a good idea for rspec-mocks.
Another option might be to deprecate #stub! as an alias for
Hi
Warning: this goes on quite a bit. It contains early-morning caffeinated
ramblings and many hmmm I wonder what this does... snippets.
I'm looking for the best way to parameterise shared examples. Imagine (as an
academic example...) you were doing it for subclasses of Struct instances (a
On Jul 23, 2010, at 8:57 am, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
Recently commited (RSpec 2.0.0.beta.18) was the ability to pass a block to
it_should_behave_like, making the relation clearer; eg:
describe MyStruct do
it_should_behave_like 'a Struct' do
let(:struct) { MyStruct.new }
end
On 17 Jul 2010, at 4:37 PM, doug livesey wrote:
At the minute I'm chaining a load of should_receive calls on mock relation
objects
I've found this can cause pain in so many ways:
* Your tests end up coupled to the database structure (as that's how most
associations are inferred)
* You're at
On 17 Jul 2010, at 5:58 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:
You don't need to test Paperclip's ability to put files to S3
It depends on your confidence in Paperclip (s/Paperclip/X random library) and
the severity of problem it could cause if it doesn't work. To me, at least,
it's more a risk/value
On 17 Jul 2010, at 5:43 PM, doug livesey wrote:
Please tell me they're doing *some*thing, as I'm using S3 storage, which
would really slow my tests down if I just did nothing.
I'm starting to think of all sorts of horrible solutions, like making the
storage strategy dependent on the
Hi all
Reposting this for the benefit of anyone who may be able to attend but wouldn't
normally see ShRUG announcements.
ShRUG is the Sheffield (UK) Ruby User Group. ShRUG July 2010 is now confirmed.
Ashley Moran (that's me) of PatchSpace Ltd (that's also me, really) will be
running
Hi all
Apologies for cross-posting and spam in the same post. Hopefully you'll let me
off this once...
I just released my first gem (woo!), database_resetter[1]. It's designed to
completely rebuild your Rails/Merb etc database before a Cucumber/RSpec every
time a migration changes.
Hi
I can't find any reference to this being a known issue or not. I'm having to
work on a Rails 2.3 project for a bit, so I'm back with RSpec 1.3. I've got
Spork working and I'm running it with this command:
ruby -S spec --drb --colour --format progress -o spec/spec.opts ...
But I only
On Mar 29, 2010, at 9:04 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
How wide-reaching are your changes? i.e. how many files, etc?
I think it's only really the Runner stuff that's changed. I've split it into
InProcess and DRbProxy or some such... although I think really the DRb stuff
belongs higher up.
Hi
Hopefully I'll get chance to finish Spork integration with RSpec 2 this
weekend. I've got two questions...
(1) What's the best way to merge my changes back in? My shockingly bad Git-fu
has made it impossible to rebase on top of master. I suspect having a (now
disabled) Textmate macro
Hi
I've just started using RSpec 2 in Rails 3 and I'm incredibly frustrated by the
time it takes to boot Rails, it's a real TDD bottleneck. The obvious solution
is Spork, which is currently not possible with RSpec 2 because it lacks DRb
support[1].
I've cloned RSpec and I'm about to start
On Mar 10, 2010, at 1:46 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
AFAIK, no. Please add a comment to the issue saying you're working on it.
Done.
* are there any potential issues that people with RSpec 2 knowledge can
forsee? I don't want to lose time on known gotchas.
* You will need the other gems
Hi
For the last 18 months I've been used to writing specs like this, which was
written with Merb 1.1.0.pre and RSpec 1.3:
module LanguageRepository
describe DataMapperAdapter do
it_should_behave_like Contract: LanguageRepository
def language_repository
On 7 Feb 2010, at 8:41 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
The a5 release only supports model and request (integration - a la
merb) specs, but controllers, views and helpers will be coming soon.
Well chop chop then, anyone would think you were working for free ;o)
On a more serious note, I think the
On Feb 02, 2010, at 8:58 am, Kristian Mandrup wrote:
Where should the spec command be found?
Did you find it?
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
On Feb 02, 2010, at 8:58 am, Kristian Mandrup wrote:
Using brew as package manager
kristian-mandrups-macbook-pro:rspec-coding kristianconsult$ spec --
help
-bash: spec: command not found
$
If you're using Homebrew[1] (?) you'll need to figure out where it's storing
binaries.
Run find /
On Jan 28, 2010, at 5:49 pm, Rick DeNatale wrote:
I'd like to write a spec to ensure that this doesn't regress, but my
imagination is failing me as to how to do it.
Any ideas?
Yes: don't use inheritance for implementations. The bug you describe is
arguably a violation of the Liskov
On Jan 28, 2010, at 1:29 pm, Paul Hinze wrote:
I believe the lack of ability to use this notation comes down to a ruby
limitation, but I'm not sure. If that's the case, then we would need a
specific argument expectation (along the lines of my suggestion) that
executes in a context in which
On Jan 19, 2010, at 2:33 pm, Juanma Cervera wrote:
Yes, I mean the Singleton Pattern.
I am not an expert with OO, but I supposed this pattern was what best
fits my needs of a class that represent a unique resource in the system,
in this case it's something like a queue of jobs that I have
On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?
As an extension, how about:
define_simple_predicate_matcher :risen_from_the_ashes = :rise_from_the_ashes?
Also, in general, I think specs look better without ? symbols on methods, my
On Jan 18, 2010, at 3:12 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
I'd rather not add a new DSL for the few cases in which we want to
essentially delegate a predicate. We can already do this with the
matcher DSL:
I think Pat was just suggesting Roger try this in his own code. It's not
something I
On 14 Jan 2010, at 17:02, Rick DeNatale wrote:
-1
You can already say
a.should include(1:4)
which is clearer IMHO.
I assume Roger was referring to the general case though (which I still don't
like) - and just happened to pick an example with an existing matcher.
--
On Jan 12, 2010, at 10:49 pm, rogerdpack wrote:
a.should include?(1:4) # if there's no matcher called include? then
just call include?
Am I right thinking that this would mean writing a method_missing that creates
a matcher for every unhandled message on the example object (whatever scope
On Jan 14, 2010, at 12:15 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
re: Integration testing, everybody has a different definition. Before Rails
came along, the prevalent definition that I was aware of was testing the
behaviour of two non-trivial components together.
More recently, the definition that
On Jan 14, 2010, at 1:17 pm, John Polling wrote:
I think this is the part that I'm confusing myself with as most Cucumber
information talks about using scenarios to drive the code out. So
Cucumber comes first, whereas I used to do the Acceptance testing after
all the other TDD stuff.
On 7 Jan 2010, at 19:15, David Chelimsky wrote:
Cool. I'm not sure when I'll get to this, but I'm pretty sure this would work
for you for now (untested):
Spec::Matchers.define :include_all do |*expected|
match do |actual|
expected.all? {|e| actual.include?(e)}
end
end
On 30 Dec 2009, at 20:19, David Chelimsky wrote:
What about something like:
expected #Class:2158174640 = Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum
That is more aligned with other failure messages. WDYT?
I like that. You have to read the current message _very_ carefully to see what
it's actually
On 29 Dec 2009, at 15:59, David Chelimsky wrote:
I started http://wiki.github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/matcher-libraries. Please
feel free to modify/add.
I like! A wiki solves 90% of problems like this with 2% of the effort. I
hadn't realised the wiki had moved along - unlike Cucumber, I
On 28 Dec 2009, at 16:27, David Chelimsky wrote:
For most users, gems are the easiest answer. By all means, host source on
github if you want people to contribute, or have a place to inspect code, but
you don't need a public source repository in order to push gems to gemcutter.
A standard
On Dec 20, 2009, at 6:07 am, Elliot Winkler wrote:
raise_error already catches any type of exception, error or not:
class BlahException Exception; end
class BlahError StandardError; end
lambda { raise BlahException }.should raise_error(BlahException)
lambda { raise BlahError
On 18 Dec 2009, at 14:46, Tom Stuart wrote:
Can you elaborate? From a position of no knowledge, the most obvious question
to me is: why would I care about the state of O? Either the change in O's
state is observable through its behaviour (in which case I specify that
behaviour) or it's
Hi all
I'm working my way through Growing Object-Oriented Software[1], currently at
the start of chapter 15. Chapter 14 introduces a concept I haven't seen
before, state-based expectations based on sent messages.
The principle appears to be
object O has sent message M = O is in state S
On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:46 pm, Tom Stuart wrote:
Can you elaborate? From a position of no knowledge, the most obvious question
to me is: why would I care about the state of O? Either the change in O's
state is observable through its behaviour (in which case I specify that
behaviour) or it's
On Dec 01, 2009, at 4:46 pm, Lenny Marks wrote:
This seems dangerous to me. Assuming I hadn't initially stubbed in the before
block and everything worked as expected, if someone later stubs :lookup in
the before block because they are adding new examples that don't care about
it, my
On Dec 01, 2009, at 7:34 pm, Lenny Marks wrote:
Thanks Ashley. I added my 2 cents to the ticket.
Just had a look over your comments. It's a complicated issue... I hope David
can reconcile it. I'm not sure what the best solution is.
Ashley
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
On Nov 29, 2009, at 6:33 am, rogerdpack wrote:
It is somewhat surprising to me, as a newbie, to have to assert
a.should be_a(Hash)
Hi Roger
Once you see the matcher (ie be_a) as something that returns a matcher object,
it makes a lot more sense. My brain is now wired to give much more
On Nov 25, 2009, at 6:38 pm, Matt Wynne wrote:
+1
And have a coding dojo ASAP. It's much easier to learn when you're having fun.
On 25 Nov 2009, at 18:07, Pat Maddox wrote:
Pair with them. How big's the team? Lots of ways you can do this.
+2
+1 For the pairing, it's the most
On Nov 13, 2009, at 6:04 pm, Arco wrote:
Is there a way to mock the Org object, without having to require it in
my test setup ??
Hi Arco
Are you running the spec through something that loads a code loader (eg: for my
specs, spec_helper.rb starts Merb in the test environment), or just
On Nov 08, 2009, at 10:39 am, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
@post.published_at.should be_nil
@post.publish!
(Time.now - @post.published_at).should have_at_most(1).second
FWIW, this is what I do too, although I normally use should or
be_close, but the idea is the same. You only need to
On Oct 28, 2009, at 9:42 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
Sorry about that :( And thanks, Ashley, for righting (and writing)
my wrong.
No probs. I'm trying to answer the straightforward technical
questions, at least non-Rails ones. To people who have clearly tried
to help themselves first
On Oct 29, 2009, at 3:09 am, Student wrote:
I am writing a script that reads connection information from a config
file, and based, on what it finds, connects to multiple mysql servers
and performs tasks. To test this script, I need to set up test
servers, but getting them running without
On Oct 29, 2009, at 12:28 pm, Student wrote:
No autoscript here. I don't doubt that there are wrappers that might
handle it, I was going for a solution in a bare rspec environment.
Still not sure I understand the problem. Can you explain what you
mean by getting them running without
On 29 Oct 2009, at 13:58, Tom Stuart wrote:
On 29 Oct 2009, at 13:46, Stephen Eley wrote:
Everyone's busy programming. 8-
I imagine the book helps a bit, too.
The book pretty much replaces the slides I did for my mocking
presentation, and may do the same for the rest of my consulting
On 29 Oct 2009, at 08:28, Paul Carey wrote:
If I create a new merb app (1.0.12) and model and then run rake spec,
all is well. However, if I copy its spec_helper into my own app, the
problems listed above appear. So I think the source of the issue lies
somewhere else.
Have you upgraded the
On 28 Oct 2009, at 20:42, Student wrote:
So now I'm
back to the undefined method `after' for main:Object (NoMethodError)
problem.
I think it was just a typo on David's part. Does the following work?
Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
config.after(:suite) do
# shut stuff down
On 26 Oct 2009, at 07:10, abhisheksreepal wrote:
Thanks.
There were a few other things odd about your code though. You don't
need to use global variables ($), and you're including thinks into the
global namespace object. RSpec is heavily block-oriented, and it
makes life a lot easier
On Oct 23, 2009, at 2:47 pm, abhisheksreepal wrote:
describe 'should Navigate to Gmail Login Screen' do
it 'Enter username'
$ie = Watir::IE.new
$ie.goto($email)
$ie.text_field(:id, 'Email').set($username)
#$ie.text.should ('Aidy Lewis')
end
You missed the block delimiters:
On 21 Oct 2009, at 19:18, Stephen Eley wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Carl Graff cagr...@cox.net wrote:
In truth, due to my inexperience and confusion, mocks seem to slow my
development more than just creating real objects. But since there
has been
so much effort to put these into
On 22 Oct 2009, at 16:28, Paul Carey wrote:
Outside of the old merb app, I wasn't able to duplicate this issue. I
also copied the spec_helper from a newly created merb app (1.0.12)
into the old app, but the issue persisted. Perhaps a library conflict
might be to blame?
Hi Paul
I use Merb
1 - 100 of 362 matches
Mail list logo
