Yeah, I've filed a patch for it - #14140
Regards,
Trevor
On 9/21/07, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nope - it's a bug. I've experienced the same thing too.
>
> Scott
--
--
Trevor Squires
http://somethinglearned.com
___
rspec-users mailin
I'm trying to generate stories based on Dan North's example.
I'm not sure how to do this.
require File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), "helper")
Story "Account Holder withdraws cash", %{
As an Account Holder
I want to withdraw cash from an ATM
So that I can get money when the bank is closed
},
>>
>> sorry if this is something better suited to another list.
>>
>> I've encountered a strange problem with the RSpec.tmbundle in trunk -
>> namely that it was raising an exception when pressing
>> ctrl-shift-downarrow (switch between spec and source - "Alternate
>> File").
>>
>> I tracked down t
I have to agree with David. (It's in the contract ;)
Scenarios are reusable as steps in order to chain multiple scenarios
together (to describe the various coarse-grained stages of a workflow,
state machine or wizard, for example).
At an example level it is just confusing. I've noticed that i
David,
On Sep 21, 2007, at 11:19 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Then I will have tens of methods that in fact has nothing really
>> different from reused examples
>
> But, as methods, they are more clearly differentiated for reuse.
>
> The
Ok, let me try to explain. I have some controllers that are doing
some kind of "main" action and some additional ones. These actions
are belong to different aspects of logic and thus
I'd prefer to test them separately to have clean and nice code that
can be easily modified.
Then, what's bett
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then I will have tens of methods that in fact has nothing really
> different from reused examples
But, as methods, they are more clearly differentiated for reuse.
The problem is that if I reuse an example, and then decide to change
that e
Then I will have tens of methods that in fact has nothing really
different from reused examples
On Sep 21, 2007, at 11:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you want to reuse stuff in your tests put those test methods in
> a separate module and include them into you specs
> Sent via BlackBerry
If you want to reuse stuff in your tests put those test methods in a separate
module and include them into you specs
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:12:50
To:rspec-users
Subject: Re: [rspec-users
This concept violates oo if you want to test whether or not r method calls
another method you would do that in the test and label it occordingly. What you
are defining is such a narrow use case I think it would be abused
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: "David C
>> Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
>>
>> it "should do #1" do
>> ...
>> end
>> it "should do X after #1" do
>> given_it "should do #1"
>> should do_x
>> end
>> it "should do Y after #1" do
>> given_it "should do #1"
>> should do_y
>> end
>> it "should do
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
>
> it "should do #1" do
> ...
> end
> it "should do X after #1" do
> given_it "should do #1"
> should do_x
> end
> it "should do Y after #1" do
> given_it "should do
Sure! But they are not the same stuff. What I was looking for is
it "should do #1" do
...
end
it "should do X after #1" do
given_it "should do #1"
should do_x
end
it "should do Y after #1" do
given_it "should do #1"
should do_y
end
it "should do Z after #1 Y" do
given_it "should do Y a
Please submit this to the tracker as a patch.
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=797
Thanks,
David
On 9/21/07, Trevor Squires <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> sorry if this is something better suited to another list.
>
> I've encountered a strange problem with the RSpec.tmbundl
Have you seen shared behaviours?
On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just decided to check whether I am doing something that makes sense
> or not. I was thinking about how cool would it be to re-use examples
> (just like we reuse story scenarios with GivenScenario
wow nevermind :)
assigns[:subdomain] = 'test'
On 9/21/07, Lance Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wait I think the problem stemmed from the fact that I started to
> prefix all of my urls with :subdomain. Could this be a possibility? If
> so, how to get around this?
>
> On 9/21/07, Lance Ca
Hey,
sorry if this is something better suited to another list.
I've encountered a strange problem with the RSpec.tmbundle in trunk -
namely that it was raising an exception when pressing
ctrl-shift-downarrow (switch between spec and source - "Alternate
File").
I tracked down the issue to be hand
Wait I think the problem stemmed from the fact that I started to
prefix all of my urls with :subdomain. Could this be a possibility? If
so, how to get around this?
On 9/21/07, Lance Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW I also tried this:
>
> template.stub!(:edit_label_url).and_return('')
>
> b
BTW I also tried this:
template.stub!(:edit_label_url).and_return('')
but the same error continues to persist
On 9/21/07, Lance Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW I know this is old, but did you know you can do this?
>
> iink_to a.name, [EMAIL PROTECTED], @project],,{:class=>"show",:title=
BTW I know this is old, but did you know you can do this?
iink_to a.name, [EMAIL PROTECTED], @project],,{:class=>"show",:title=>"Show
> actor details"} ?
I'm having trouble mocking this my view specs right now as it is
giving me errors, but it works fine in rails edge. I will report on my
discove
Hello,
Just decided to check whether I am doing something that makes sense
or not. I was thinking about how cool would it be to re-use examples
(just like we reuse story scenarios with GivenScenario). I was not
sure if this possibility already exists in rspec (and, honestly, was
lazy to c
Although it would be nice (and not too difficult) to have the example
runner intercept any class creation (and perhaps other global/constant
definitions) and undef them after each example.
It certainly seems reasonable to have any defined classes go away after
an example.
aslak hellesoy wrot
22 matches
Mail list logo
