On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Zach Dennis wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Martin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to test my views using rspec. I want to test my edit- and
>> new-view also for the case an error occurs (something like "title can't be
>> blank" and so on).
>> Can someone
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Martin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to test my views using rspec. I want to test my edit- and
> new-view also for the case an error occurs (something like "title can't be
> blank" and so on).
> Can someone point me please to an example where I can see how to mock my
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>
> On 19 Feb 2009, at 20:54, Martin wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to test my views using rspec. I want to test my edit- and
>> new-view also for the case an error occurs (something like "title can't be
>> blank" and so on).
>> Can someone poin
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Martin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to test my views using rspec. I want to test my edit- and
> new-view also for the case an error occurs (something like "title can't be
> blank" and so on).
> Can someone point me please to an example where I can see how to mock my
On Feb 19, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Martin wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to test my views using rspec. I want to test my edit- and
new-view also for the case an error occurs (something like "title
can't be blank" and so on).
Can someone point me please to an example where I can see how to
mock my mode
On 19 feb 2009, at 21:54, Martin wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to test my views using rspec. I want to test my edit- and
new-view also for the case an error occurs (something like "title
can't be blank" and so on).
Can someone point me please to an example where I can see how to
mock my model
On 19 Feb 2009, at 20:54, Martin wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to test my views using rspec. I want to test my edit- and
new-view also for the case an error occurs (something like "title
can't be blank" and so on).
Can someone point me please to an example where I can see how to
mock my model
Hi,
I'm trying to test my views using rspec. I want to test my edit- and
new-view also for the case an error occurs (something like "title can't
be blank" and so on).
Can someone point me please to an example where I can see how to mock my
model and stub all methods needed for the view?
Th
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Tero Tilus wrote:
> I've got an AR-model with some find-magic I want to test. When I have
>
> ActiveRecord::Base.should_receive(:find).with(anything(),assert_options)
> MyModel.find(:all,find_options)
MyModel != ActiveRecord::Base
Try this
MyModel.should_rec
I've got an AR-model with some find-magic I want to test. When I have
ActiveRecord::Base.should_receive(:find).with(anything(),assert_options)
MyModel.find(:all,find_options)
in my example find-method somehow disappears alltogether and I get
NoMethodError in 'MyModel find-options are pass
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Mark Wilden wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Yi Wen wrote:
>>
>> validates_presence_of happens to be the name of the method in
>> ActiveRecord that does that. But if you decide to write your own
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:55 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> This is where this all gets tricky.
Yep. >8->
> TDD (remember? that's where this all started) says you don't write any
> subject code without a failing *unit test*. This is not about the end
> result - it's about a process. What you'
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Yi Wen wrote:
>
> validates_presence_of happens to be the name of the method in
> ActiveRecord that does that. But if you decide to write your own
> check_to_see_if_this_thingy_is_in_my_whatsis() method that
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
>
> But I did not write any code yet setting the message. Because I
> haven't written any tests for the message. At this point I don't care
> what the message is, just that I have the right data. I care about
> the message when I start focus
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:52 AM, lasitha wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:51pm, David Chelimsky
> wrote:
>>On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> mi...@baci.local ~/ruby_programs/mail
>>> $ autospec
>>> /usr/local/bin/autotest:19:in `load': Is a directory -
>>
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:55 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
>
>
>> If your spec breaks because you changed a method call, you're not
>> testing behavior any more. You're testing syntax.
>
>
> We've got to stop making laws out of guidelines. T
Just wanted to thank everyone for their replies. I actually recall
that thread now about imperative vs. declarative. I've just re-read
Ben's post along with some of the linked content off the post and now
and I feel a bit more comfortable with the direction I was going in. I
personally tend
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Yi Wen wrote:
> Good point, that's actually I am debating with myself everyday and haven't
> got a clear answer. This is classical "calssic unit tester" vs. mockist war.
> :)
>
> Talking about this case:
>
> 1. I haven't checked how should valite_presence_of is im
Hi,
I know this seems all take and no give, but do we have an estimated
final release date for Cucumber 0.2?
Thanks
Aidy
Celerity, Cucumber and Firewatir:
http://skillsmatter.com/event/ruby-on-rails/lrug-march
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Stephen Eley wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:58 AM, David Chelimsky
> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, while I used to be very anal and write "should
>>> have(1).error_on(:login)" and such, I eventually realized that there's
>>> no point. Checking on 'valid?' is entire a
Good point, that's actually I am debating with myself everyday and haven't
got a clear answer. This is classical "calssic unit tester" vs. mockist war.
:)
Talking about this case:
1. I haven't checked how should valite_presence_of is implemented, but it
could pretty much be checking if the value
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:31 AM, 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
>1.
>http://seattlerb.rubyforge.org/ar_mailer/classes/ActionMailer/ARMailer.html
> P.S. I'll follow up with a confirmation post just to let the people know
> how it worked out for us with ARMailer.
Yeap everything worked like a charm, once again checking email contents
like there is no tomorrow
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
> If your spec breaks because you changed a method call, you're not
> testing behavior any more. You're testing syntax.
We've got to stop making laws out of guidelines. This is a very
general statement about what is really a very specific
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:56 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:58 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> Also, while I used to be very anal and write "should
>> have(1).error_on(:login)" and such, I eventually realized that there's
>> no point. Checking on 'valid?' is entire and sufficient.
>
> I think this depends on whether or not error
Dave, you make a good point. In our system, where we are converting a
legacy database/application, we typically have no user stories and have
the technical (or you could argue user) requirement that the database
logic / constraints get converted. This is where we are typically just
encoding all
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:51pm, David Chelimsky
wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
>> [...]
>> mi...@baci.local ~/ruby_programs/mail
>> $ autospec
>> /usr/local/bin/autotest:19:in `load': Is a directory -
>> /usr/local/lib/ruby-trunk/gems/1.9.1/gems/rspec-1.1.11/lib
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
> El 19/2/2009, a las 7:56, David Chelimsky escribió:
>
>> 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
> Wrong. You don't have to test validates_presence_of. What matters,
> and therefore what you should test, is whether the model will complain
> at you if a particular value is left empty.
> ...
> If your spec breaks because you changed a method call, you're not
> testing behavior any more. You'r
Thanks guys, very interesting points.
As a good collegue of mine says, its all about trade offs :)
I agree with changing your production code to make it more testable,
definitely, especially early on in the development process, once your
site is up and running it would have to be done with extr
El 19/2/2009, a las 7:56, David Chelimsky
escribió:
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 ho
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Ben Mabey wrote:
> I'm hoping that the designer (or the co-worker programmer) who won the
> Cucumber logo contest will see this message...
>
> I'm looking for a hi-res or vector-based version of the Cucumber logo for
> use in a presentation. If the image is not ve
On 19 Feb 2009, at 05:40, Stephen Eley wrote:
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
I'm hoping that the designer (or the co-worker programmer) who won the
Cucumber logo contest will see this message...
I'm looking for a hi-res or vector-based version of the Cucumber logo
for use in a presentation. If the image is not vector based then a
hi-res version with a transparent back
35 matches
Mail list logo
