On Aug 31, 2008, at 2:58 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Chuck Remes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Aug 31, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Chuck Remes wrote:
I looked through the mailing list archive but unfortunately my
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Chuck Remes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 31, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 31, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Chuck Remes wrote:
>>
>>> I looked through the mailing list archive but unfortunately my search
>>> terms are too generic (spec and req
On Aug 31, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Aug 31, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Chuck Remes wrote:
I looked through the mailing list archive but unfortunately my
search terms are too generic (spec and require...).
I am writing ruby code that runs under jruby in an embedded
environment.
I've been giving this some thought, I've not had the chance to test it
out yet,
but here are my examples:
--
it "should add a 'it' test" do
example_group = Class.new(Spec::Example::ExampleGroup)
example_group.should_receive(:it).with(...) ...
example.class_eval do
describe_model_attribu
On Aug 31, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Chuck Remes wrote:
I looked through the mailing list archive but unfortunately my
search terms are too generic (spec and require...).
I am writing ruby code that runs under jruby in an embedded
environment. Periodically I will install new code that passes all
Could you put a mocking expectation on Kernel? (which is where
#require is defined)
Kernel.should_receive(:require).with(expected_file_name)
On 31 Aug 2008, at 15:36, Chuck Remes wrote:
I looked through the mailing list archive but unfortunately my
search terms are too generic (spec and re
On 30 Aug 2008, at 19:56, Ashley Moran wrote:
On Aug 30, 2008, at 4:58 pm, Matt Wynne wrote:
I have been in a few pub conversations now about 'photoshop-driven-
development' where we show the machine what the page should look
like (a photoshop mock-up), and keeps failing the build until we
I looked through the mailing list archive but unfortunately my search
terms are too generic (spec and require...).
I am writing ruby code that runs under jruby in an embedded
environment. Periodically I will install new code that passes all
specs only to have it fail when it can't find a ne
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Jonathan Linowes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 31, 2008, at 9:39 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> Agreed. Stories and/or Features seem to be more about organization and
>> communication. Scenarios drive code development.
>
> +1
> I also like to organize them
On Aug 31, 2008, at 9:39 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
Agreed. Stories and/or Features seem to be more about organization and
communication. Scenarios drive code development.
+1
I also like to organize them into workflows, tasks, goals
Which makes me think maybe the scenario should be a more ind
On Aug 31, 2008, at 7:56 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
On 30 Aug 2008, at 19:31, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Aug 30, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Tero Tilus wrote:
2008-08-30 17:02, Matt Wynne:
RuBehave
Now _that's_ cool! I love it!
Personally, I always liked the rbehave / rspec combo, of Mike
Myers & Ali
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Dan North <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the risk of being a bit controversial...
>
> 2008/8/24 David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
>>
>> Sadly, "spec" has just as much baggage, if not more, as "test" does.
>> These days we're calling these things "code exa
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2008, at 19:31, Scott Taylor wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Tero Tilus wrote:
>>
>>> 2008-08-30 17:02, Matt Wynne:
RuBehave
>>>
>>> Now _that's_ cool! I love it!
>>
>> Personally, I always lik
On 30 Aug 2008, at 19:31, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Aug 30, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Tero Tilus wrote:
2008-08-30 17:02, Matt Wynne:
RuBehave
Now _that's_ cool! I love it!
Personally, I always liked the rbehave / rspec combo, of Mike Myers
& Ali G.
Scott
:)
One of the main adoption barrier
14 matches
Mail list logo