On 9/4/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe this is what your thinking?
>
> http://opensoul.org/2007/4/18/rspec-model-should-be_valid
>
That should be the default matcher for be_valid... I use that and help
me pinpoint some brittle specs (all related to new attributes added
later in th
Ashley Moran wrote:
On 3 Sep 2007, at 15:37, David Chelimsky wrote:
But it is an interesting idea that we should stay open to. Perhaps
more compelling reasons for such a change will appear in the future.
I like the sound of .spec in a way. It shortens the filenames which
is always
On 5/09/2007, at 10:00 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> This looks like the same error - can you run just the file w/ this
> spec like this:
>
> spec path/to/file.rb -b
>
> That'll produce the full backtrace.
>
> Thanks
Yeah it does look similar (I was reading the bug report last night)
You have a
On 9/4/07, Shane Mingins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 4/09/2007, at 3:44 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> >
> > I am going to guess that it's something like this:
> >
> > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > You might have expected an instance of Array.
> > The error occurred whi
On 4/09/2007, at 3:44 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> I am going to guess that it's something like this:
>
> You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> You might have expected an instance of Array.
> The error occurred while evaluating nil.<<
>
> If not, please post the error (good idea to
Pat Maddox wrote:
> On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
me
On 9/4/07, Jay Levitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Seems like, in this case, he'd output @person.errors in his message so
> he could see *why* person was invalid; the "puts" is his current
> hack-around for the lack of custom messages.
>
> Not a bad idea, really. (the custom messages, not the ha
On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
> > > > from. We made a conscious decision, however, not
On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
> > > from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
> > > messages almost two years ago and
Chad Humphries wrote:
> I generally write custom expectation matchers when I want more
> specific information on failure scenarios. Granted this might not
> work in all scenarios (taking time to write a custom matcher I mean),
> but for most things it has made it very nice.
Hmm, I wonder if
At the moment I'm including files from the root of my spec directory
so I don't touch my spec_helper.rb file because it seems to change
every once in awhile when rspec gets upgraded. I think it would be
good if we had a place to put modules, perhaps a file that got
auto-loaded so you could include
I generally write custom expectation matchers when I want more
specific information on failure scenarios. Granted this might not
work in all scenarios (taking time to write a custom matcher I mean),
but for most things it has made it very nice.
-Chad
On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Jay Levitt
On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > So I'd been ru
On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > So I'd been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months,
>
Shane Mingins wrote:
>
> On 5/09/2007, at 8:51 AM, Geoffrey Wiseman wrote:
>
>>
>> Using this as an example, if a new validation rule is added, this test
>> will fail without indicating /why/. Sure, I can get that answer in
>> other ways, but I'd hate to discover things like:
>>
>> it "should
On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So I'd been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months,
> > > and I installed edge rspec so that I can use Story Runner.
On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
> > from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
> > messages almost two years ago and I'm not sure if its ever even come
> > up before. If it has,
On 5/09/2007, at 8:51 AM, Geoffrey Wiseman wrote:
Using this as an example, if a new validation rule is added, this
test will fail without indicating /why/. Sure, I can get that
answer in other ways, but I'd hate to discover things like:
it "should be valid with valid attributes" do
#
On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So I'd been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months,
> > and I installed edge rspec so that I can use Story Runner.
> >
> > I'm running into a problem because I've got a co
>
> I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
> from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
> messages almost two years ago and I'm not sure if its ever even come
> up before. If it has, it was a long time ago.
[nod] Perhaps as I get into the mi
What I've done with this is to just uninstall the gem and commit to
working off of the plugins completely. I've found that with gems in
general, I try to keep them local to the project I'm on, almost as if
they were a plugin. I move them to my project's lib (gem unpack) so
that I've got e
On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'd been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months,
> and I installed edge rspec so that I can use Story Runner.
>
> I'm running into a problem because I've got a couple rake tasks that
> reference "spec/rake/raketask". If I try
So I'd been running gem releases of rspec for the past several months,
and I installed edge rspec so that I can use Story Runner.
I'm running into a problem because I've got a couple rake tasks that
reference "spec/rake/raketask". If I try to run "rake spec" then it
pulls in the gem version inste
On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having used JUnit and Test::Unit, I'm quite used to having the ability to
> insert a failure message, which helps when tests fail.
>
> For instance, the example RSpec that is generated for a model class
> specifies that the model class is val
Having used JUnit and Test::Unit, I'm quite used to having the ability to
insert a failure message, which helps when tests fail.
For instance, the example RSpec that is generated for a model class
specifies that the model class is valid. Assuming this were supposed to be
true, and it failed, I've
Or am I to assume that rails is doing it's job and that the
associations I created in my models are working as they should?
On 9/4/07, Lance Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, so to extend this issue, I'm attempting to use mocks and stubs on
> my model specs. I've got some questions though..
Ok, so to extend this issue, I'm attempting to use mocks and stubs on
my model specs. I've got some questions though.. here is my code:
module UserSpecHelper
def mock_user(user)
@user = mock_model(User)
if user == :lance || user == :account_owner
@user.stub!(:login).and_return('lan
On 9/4/07, Lance Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the general opinion about fixtures versus mocking and stubbing
> in model specs? I heard from agile on IRC that they save the database
> testing for integration testing, but I also see that the caboose
> sample applicaiton uses fixtures.
What is the general opinion about fixtures versus mocking and stubbing
in model specs? I heard from agile on IRC that they save the database
testing for integration testing, but I also see that the caboose
sample applicaiton uses fixtures. I also noticed that on the rspec
site, it says "Ironically
Yes I was about to forward you to my blog post
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: Surendra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 17:36:52
To:rspec-users@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] specing helpers fails on restful routes
Nevermind, i just saw an
Nevermind, i just saw an old post mentioning the same issue.
Thanks!
On 9/4/07, Surendra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to spec helper methods in a Rails project, but it seems
> the specs fail with the error:
>
> You might have expected an instance of Array.
> The error occurred
Hi,
I am trying to spec helper methods in a Rails project, but it seems
the specs fail with the error:
You might have expected an instance of Array.
The error occurred while evaluating nil.<<
if the restful routes helper are used either in spec files, or the helper file.
What can I be doing wr
Personally, I dont want to become an expert at the range of possible
testing and mocking tools. I just want a solid framework to get my
work done, recommended by experts like you. And the less different
components I need to install and maintain, the better. So I prefer
the integrated approa
On 3 Sep 2007, at 15:03, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> Not used Autotest
>
> You SHOULD!
Why do I have a feeling I will now try it out and go WHY OH WHY
DIDN'T I USE THIS BEFORE???
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge
On 3 Sep 2007, at 15:37, David Chelimsky wrote:
> But it is an interesting idea that we should stay open to. Perhaps
> more compelling reasons for such a change will appear in the future.
I like the sound of .spec in a way. It shortens the filenames which
is always a bonus for TM users. I c
35 matches
Mail list logo
