Hi - just thought I'd share this great blog post by Liz Keogh with you all:
http://lizkeogh.com/2008/09/10/feature-injection-and-handling-technical-stories/
Aslak
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinf
On 10 Sep 2008, at 19:49, Pat Maddox wrote:
except you can't simply do that, because ActionPack is a rat's nest of
dependencies.
With that one sentence, you have summed up all the painful bits of my
first five weeks on rails. Bring on merb :)
cheers,
Matt
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http
of course, there's one 'global' shared between steps that we cant
live without: response
:)
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Rick DeNatale wrote:
I've done something similar, but I might have handled the steps
implementation a bit differently in that I'm not sure my approach would
be called stateless.
For example say I had (in a very abstract form)
Given 'Rick' has admin privileges
Then 'Rick' can do ad
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Mark Dodwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that RSpec-Rails isn't restricted to the HTTP methods
> correctly.
>
> For example doing:
>
> http://foo.local/session/destroy
>
> in the browser doesn't work, because the destroy action is only
> recognised with
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Mark Dodwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that RSpec-Rails isn't restricted to the HTTP methods
> correctly.
>
> For example doing:
>
> http://foo.local/session/destroy
>
> in the browser doesn't work, because the destroy action is only
> recognised with
It seems that RSpec-Rails isn't restricted to the HTTP methods
correctly.
For example doing:
http://foo.local/session/destroy
in the browser doesn't work, because the destroy action is only
recognised with the HTTP 'delete' verb.
But in Rspec specs if you do:
get :destroy
It works.
Is t
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I had some stories which worked fine under RSpec 1.1.3 which are broken
> under 1.1.4 (suddenly all steps are marked as PENDING, and one of the steps
> raises a NoMethodError due to an unexpected nil object i
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:42 AM, aslak hellesoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Dan North <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Jim.
> >
> > I guess I'm not a purist then - that looks fine to me, and it's probably
> > something I would consider doing too.
>
> The debate se
Hi all,
I had some stories which worked fine under RSpec 1.1.3 which are
broken under 1.1.4 (suddenly all steps are marked as PENDING, and one
of the steps raises a NoMethodError due to an unexpected nil object in
the store_and_call method of rspec/lib/spec/story/world.rb).
Here is the ou
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Jim Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>> There is persistent state (database) and object state (the object that
>> serves as a context for a scenario).
>>
>> I'm not saying that state in and of itself is bad. However, *coupling*
>> is bad -
11 matches
Mail list logo
