I have both the rspec 1.1.11 and rspec-rails 1.1.11 as gems. I had them
plugged in my application too. When I removed them from my application the
problem was solved. The version of both the gems and plugins are same.
Why did this happen?
--
Waseem
RwrWrwRwrWrwRwrWrwRwrWrwR
B
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:11 AM, aslak hellesoy
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:02 PM, David Chelimsky
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:49 AM, aslak hellesoy
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:21 PM, David Chelimsky
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Steve Molitor wrote:
>> Lots of features use the word "should" in their then clauses.
>> Take this example from the 'Feature Introduction' of the cucumber wiki:
>>
>> Scenario: Buy last coffee
>> Given the
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Steve Molitor wrote:
> Lots of features use the word "should" in their then clauses.
> Take this example from the 'Feature Introduction' of the cucumber wiki:
>
> Scenario: Buy last coffee
> Given there are 1 coffees left in the machine
> And I have deposi
Another idea I had is to potentially introduce a ValidatedDate class,
and then your "should be a valid date" step checks that the field is
an instance of ValidatedDate. That has the affect of ensuring that
people use your validation code in those spots where you want them to.
How does that sound?
Yeah I thought of something like that. Actually we do something like that
in one step now that I think about it. But I really wanted to execute the
same exact date feature (for example) doc that the user verified to make
sure nothing got lost in translation. Which I could do if I
programmaticall
> From a testing perspective it would be nice if cucumber could actually run
> the date validation feature everywhere it applies.
Sure, and you can have a step like
Given birth date is valid
Given /(.*) date is valid/ do |field|
TestData.valid_dates.each do |date|
@it.send "#{field}_date="
Perhaps. But I'm not sure then what the difference is between requirements
that should (no pun intended) be expressed via RSpec examples versus
features. Lots of features use the word "should" in their then clauses.
Take this example from the 'Feature Introduction' of the cucumber wiki:
Scenari
Thanks Matt I think you're right. Ironically on a past project customers
wanted a little drying up in the use cases because that helped their flow,
and QA wanted more inline expansion because that helped their testing flow.
The customers wanted to read about the new features, and didn't care to s
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Steve Molitor wrote:
> By a global requirement I'm talking about requirements like 'all emails must
> be formatted like this...' Some people call them constraints, but I'm
> focusing on UI or business rules, not technical things.
You say "must." That's a program
Pat,
Thanks -- I misunderstood your original response you sent below. For some
reason I read it as 'use rspec specs to validate the date logic' and missed
the bit in the second paragraph where you suggested creating an explicit
date feature. Doh! Sorry for not reading carefully.
This sounds li
On 7 Jan 2009, at 17:23, Steve Molitor wrote:
I have two related questions: What is the best way to express
global requirements, and how does one do it in Cucumber. The first
question is the one I'm most interested in right now.
By a global requirement I'm talking about requirements like
2009-01-07 13:08, David Chelimsky:
> Is the app code opening transactions?
Yes, but only one spot (iirc) which is not anywhere near the model
whose test is failing here. I'll verify tomorrow that the failing
test really doesn't run the app code in question.
--
Tero Tilus ## 050 3635 235 ## http
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Steve Molitor wrote:
> I have two related questions: What is the best way to express global
> requirements, and how does one do it in Cucumber. The first question is the
> one I'm most interested in right now.
> By a global requirement I'm talking about requiremen
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Tero Tilus wrote:
> I assume there's now something I'm totally missing here.
>
> I'm creating stuff in examples, just plain Foo.create, and the results
> aren't getting rolled back. I'm keep getting the following kind of
> pattern in my logs
>
> ... log from examp
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:26 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
> > FWIW, I was getting this error yesterday. I completely uninstalled rspec
> and
> > rspec-rails (including David's code from GitHub) and reinstalled, and it
> > "went away."
>
> Which
2009-01-07 13:04, Stephen Eley:
> config.use_transactional_fixtures in config.spec_helper.rb?
Tried true, false and commenting out. I could not see any difference.
--
Tero Tilus ## 050 3635 235 ## http://tero.tilus.net/
___
rspec-users mailing list
rs
I have two related questions: What is the best way to express global
requirements, and how does one do it in Cucumber. The first question is the
one I'm most interested in right now.
By a global requirement I'm talking about requirements like 'all emails must
be formatted like this...' Some peop
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
> FWIW, I was getting this error yesterday. I completely uninstalled rspec and
> rspec-rails (including David's code from GitHub) and reinstalled, and it
> "went away."
Which version did you install after removing everything?
>
> ///ark
>
> On
FWIW, I was getting this error yesterday. I completely uninstalled rspec and
rspec-rails (including David's code from GitHub) and reinstalled, and it
"went away."
///ark
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:49 AM, waseem ahmad wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> Seems l
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Tero Tilus wrote:
>
> I'm creating stuff in examples, just plain Foo.create, and the results
> aren't getting rolled back. I'm keep getting the following kind of
> pattern in my logs
You probably thought about this already, but did you check the setting
of config.
Steve,
That's really useful! Thank you.
- Mark
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
> >
> > I would start your debugging by adding a puts statement between lines 26
> and
> > 27 to show more of the (unexpected) response. Look
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>
> I would start your debugging by adding a puts statement between lines 26 and
> 27 to show more of the (unexpected) response. Looking at response.code or
> response.body should give you some clues.
You can also check the logfiles. I often keep
Matt Wynne wrote:
On 7 Jan 2009, at 11:46, aslak hellesoy wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Colin Jack
wrote:
Hi,
Small question on performance. I've just run the CS example provided
with Cucumber and it took about 45-50 seconds before the first output
appeared in the console, bu
I assume there's now something I'm totally missing here.
I'm creating stuff in examples, just plain Foo.create, and the results
aren't getting rolled back. I'm keep getting the following kind of
pattern in my logs
... log from example starts here ...
SQL (0.0ms) BEGIN
SQL (0.0ms)
Matt,
Thank you very much. It turns out that a pair of
authentication/authorization before_filters were interfering with the test.
I got past it now by doing this:
before(:each) do
@user = mock_user
@login_params = { :login => 'quentin', :password => 'monkey' }
User.stub!(:authentica
On 7 Jan 2009, at 11:46, aslak hellesoy wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Colin Jack
wrote:
Hi,
Small question on performance. I've just run the CS example provided
with Cucumber and it took about 45-50 seconds before the first
output appeared in the console, but once this firs
On 7 Jan 2009, at 09:31, Colin Jack wrote:
Hi,
Small question on performance. I've just run the CS example provided
with Cucumber and it took about 45-50 seconds before the first
output appeared in the console, but once this first output had
appeared the tests completed quickly.
I'm wo
On 7 Jan 2009, at 01:25, Mark A. Richman wrote:
I am trying to get the following test to pass, and get this error.
Since I'm only on day 4 of rspec, I'm sure I'm missing something
simple. Any ideas?
## rake spec
'PatientsController GET 'new' should be successful' FAILED
expected success? t
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Colin Jack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Small question on performance. I've just run the CS example provided with
> Cucumber and it took about 45-50 seconds before the first output appeared in
> the console, but once this first output had appeared the tests completed
> quick
Hi,
Small question on performance. I've just run the CS example provided with
Cucumber and it took about 45-50 seconds before the first output appeared in
the console, but once this first output had appeared the tests completed
quickly.
I'm wondering whether this is the expected performance
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> Seems like it's not loading up rspec-rails' Configuration object. In
> order for that to happen implicitly, the specs need to be in any of
> spec/models, spec/controllers, spec/views, spec/helpers. Is your file
> in one of those?
>
>
Yeah th
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:29 AM, waseem ahmad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I get this error when I do
>
> $spec /spec/any_spec
>
> /home/waseem/app/spec/spec_helper.rb:14: undefined method
> `use_transactional_fixtures=' for #
> (NoMethodError)
> from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.11/lib/spec/
33 matches
Mail list logo
