Hey fellow behaviour-drivers,
rspec-1.2 and rspec-rails-1.2 are just about ready, but I'd like to
get some feedback from the field before the release. Would the
adventurous among you kindly grab the latest github gems (1.1.99.7 as
of this email) and check 'em out? I'm hoping to release rspec-1.2
s
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>>>
>>> What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model?
>>
>> To make sure you wrote that line of code.
>
> And th
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Yi Wen wrote:
>
> Without this syntax sugar, we still have to test validates_presence_of to
> make sure it's there and won't broken, right?
Wrong. You don't have to test validates_presence_of. What matters,
and therefore what you should test, is whether the mod
Pat, not nitpicking just using your eample, which was close, but you
missed one of the reasons we like shoulda type tests::
should_require_attributes :body, :message => /wtf/
makes you put
validates_presence_of :body, :message => "hey dude, wtf, you need a body!"
because we have a bunch of cu
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>>
>> What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model?
>
> To make sure you wrote that line of code.
And the circle spins round and round...
Specs that mirror the code tha
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Ben Mabey wrote:
>
> Both ways involve some extra work. If it isn't worth the investment then
> the only other option is to test the emails apart from the selenium tests.
> It just depends on how important it is that you test everything at the same
> time.
Good
Stephen Eley wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Ben Mabey wrote:
Well, in this case the ARMailer is an arguably better alternative than
waiting on an SMTP connection for ActionMailer in production settings.
ARMailer was not created to solve testing woes.. it was created it solve
produc
We should write a test/spec, whatever you call it, *first* before you want
your code. But it doesn't mean one who writes the spec/test will use a
monkey coding the code to fix the test. To be realistic, a programmer will
write this test, and implement it right away. Just like how TDD should be
done
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Ben Mabey wrote:
>
> Well, in this case the ARMailer is an arguably better alternative than
> waiting on an SMTP connection for ActionMailer in production settings.
> ARMailer was not created to solve testing woes.. it was created it solve
> production woes. :) T
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
> I'm not commenting on this particular situation, but if I want to use
> some library, but I can't figure out how to write tests for my code
> that uses it, then I don't use it.
I take the opposite view. My *goal* in coding isn't to write goo
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
I should be able to write:
describe User do
it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
end
>>>
>>> What'
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Zach Dennis wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>> Yi Wen wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> according to this post:
>>> http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
>>>
>>> I should be able to write:
>>>
>>> describe User d
On 19/02/2009, at 14:05 , David Chelimsky wrote:
Why not start w/ RSpec but do it right?
I made the mistake of showing the guy a spec from a previous project
and narrating (not showing) how the code was built from the spec. So
the manager didn't realise that the spec was built one line at
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
> Basically, if I have to change something to make it testable, I do.
Yeah. Testability is a positive attribute. If you'd change code to
make it more readable or more speedy, why not more testable?
///ark
__
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>>>
>>> I should be able to write:
>>>
>>> describe User do
>>> it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
>>> end
>>
>> What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model?
>
> T
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>>>
>>> I should be able to write:
>>>
>>> describe User do
>>> it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
>>> end
>>
>> What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model?
>
> T
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>>
>> I should be able to write:
>>
>> describe User do
>> it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
>> end
>
> What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model?
To make sure you wrote that line of code.
///ark
_
I'm having trouble getting cucumber working. I have webrat 0.4.1
installed, but still get the error:
/Library/Ruby/Site/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
`gem_original_require': no such file to load -- spec/rails
(MissingSourceFile)
Aslak Hellesøy wrote:
> If you're on Rails and use RS
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Alex Satrapa wrote:
> On 19/02/2009, at 13:02 , Zach Dennis wrote:
>
>> I have never seen or heard of anyone who writes a spec (developer
>> level RSpec spec), but not the code and then hands it over to someone
>> else and demands that that person implements it.
>
On 19/02/2009, at 13:02 , Zach Dennis wrote:
I have never seen or heard of anyone who writes a spec (developer
level RSpec spec), but not the code and then hands it over to someone
else and demands that that person implements it.
The fun begins when you can point out two or three conflicting
On Feb 18, 2009, at 7:39 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
Yi Wen wrote:
Hello,
according to this post:
http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
I should be able to write:
describe User do
it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
end
What's the point in testing validates_
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> Yi Wen wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> according to this post:
>> http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
>>
>> I should be able to write:
>>
>> describe User do
>> it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
>> end
>
> What's
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Alex Satrapa wrote:
> On 19/02/2009, at 11:39 , Fernando Perez wrote:
>
>> What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model? It's
>> already tested in the framework, and so readable that a quick glance on
>> the model says it all.
>
> Some people want
On 19/02/2009, at 11:39 , Fernando Perez wrote:
What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model? It's
already tested in the framework, and so readable that a quick glance
on
the model says it all.
Some people want the spec to stand as a contract, so you can then hand
the spe
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> Yi Wen wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> according to this post:
>> http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
>>
>> I should be able to write:
>>
>> describe User do
>> it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
>> end
>
> What's
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Ben Mabey wrote:
>>
>> One option is to use ARMailer[1] to queue your mail. As long as your
>> selenium process and test process are using the same DB without transactions
>> getting in the way then ARMailer
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> Yi Wen wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> according to this post:
>> http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
>>
>> I should be able to write:
>>
>> describe User do
>> it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
>> end
>
> What's
Yi Wen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> according to this post:
> http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2009/1/13/rspec-1-1-12-is-released
>
> I should be able to write:
>
> describe User do
> it {should valdate_presence_of(:login)}
> end
What's the point in testing validates_presence_of for a model? It's
alrea
Stephen Eley wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Ben Mabey wrote:
One option is to use ARMailer[1] to queue your mail. As long as your
selenium process and test process are using the same DB without transactions
getting in the way then ARMailer should work fine for what you want to do.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Ben Mabey wrote:
>
> One option is to use ARMailer[1] to queue your mail. As long as your
> selenium process and test process are using the same DB without transactions
> getting in the way then ARMailer should work fine for what you want to do.
Is changing produ
Raimond Garcia wrote:
Hi,
We are upgrading to cucumber 0.1.99 in the process we also upgraded to
the latest versions of webrat and rspec. However now we are having
difficulties checking for ActionMailer.deliveries in the selenium
features. I seem to recall being able to check for these without
Hi,
We are upgrading to cucumber 0.1.99 in the process we also upgraded to
the latest versions of webrat and rspec. However now we are having
difficulties checking for ActionMailer.deliveries in the selenium
features. I seem to recall being able to check for these without
problems using webrat's
Valeu David! muito bom poder falar com o mestre em português :)
Mas eu tentei com estes, tanto com passos em inglês como em português:
http://pastie.org/392962
com os passos em inglês, o cucumber simplesmente responde "0
features". com os passos em português (que eu não tenho certeza se têm
supo
(it responds "0 Scenarios", not "0 Features", btw)
2009/2/18 Oliver Barnes :
> Valeu David! muito bom poder falar com o mestre em português :)
>
> Mas eu tentei com estes, tanto com passos em inglês como em português:
>
> http://pastie.org/392962
>
> com os passos em inglês, o cucumber simplesment
Ben has a good post on the declarative vs imperative styles here:
http://www.benmabey.com/2008/05/19/imperative-vs-declarative-scenarios-in-user-stories/
I totally agree with Josh, and indeed wrote out my own version of his login
example before realizing I should probably read his post before repl
On 16/02/2009, at 4:12 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Nick Hoffman
wrote:
I often use #and_raise like so:
@error_message = 'Some error'
@sf.should_receive(:shift_time!).and_raise @error_message
However, after trying to do this:
@argument_error = mock_model Argum
I find that the _first_ example of some functionality should be
imperative (say specifically how to achieve something step by step)
and subsequent mentions of the same functionality should be more
declarative (say in abstract terms what to achieve, but spare the step
by step details). For me, this
Announcement for new group for Vim users.
http://groups.google.com/group/vim-on-rails?hl=en
Sharing vim usage for Ruby on Rails development. Includes any platform
(Windows, Linux and Mac). Discuss anything related to Ruby and Ruby on
Rails development. (migration from TextMate, HAML/SASS, RSpec,
On 17 Feb 2009, at 20:27, Lenny Marks wrote:
Forgive the long post, just looking for input/advice/alternate
opinions..
Like many I think that going through the exercise of framing user
requests in Cucumber terms(Features, Scenarios..) really helps
facilitate necessary conversations and a
39 matches
Mail list logo
