On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Ashley Moran
wrote:
>
> On 14 Oct 2009, at 22:48, Matt Wynne wrote:
>
>> By the way, Sprout Class comes from 'Working Effectively with Legacy Code'
>> (Feathers), which is probably the best book I've read on TDD (Admittedly
>> I've yet to read The RSpec Book). High
On 14 Oct 2009, at 22:48, Matt Wynne wrote:
By the way, Sprout Class comes from 'Working Effectively with Legacy
Code' (Feathers), which is probably the best book I've read on TDD
(Admittedly I've yet to read The RSpec Book). Highly recommended.
I've heard good things about this book too.
On 14 Oct 2009, at 22:33, Matt Wynne wrote:
On 14 Oct 2009, at 20:49, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Joaquin Rivera Padron wrote:
hello there,
how do you tipically spec private methods? The thing is Ï have
something like this:
You have a few options:
1. Make the meth
On 14 Oct 2009, at 20:49, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Joaquin Rivera Padron wrote:
hello there,
how do you tipically spec private methods? The thing is Ï have
something like this:
You have a few options:
1. Make the method public in the object you are testing
2. Make
hello
2009/10/14 Ashley Moran
> On 14 Oct 2009, at 20:49, Scott Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Joaquin Rivera Padron wrote:
>>
>> private
>>> def complex_method...
>>> def other_complex_methods ...
>>>
>>> and the two complex methods can get really tricky to get right, I would
On 14 Oct 2009, at 21:31, Stephen Eley wrote:
I disagree that the simple existence of private methods is a sign of a
design flaw. There are plenty of use cases for which private methods
are the simplest and most practical approach. I use them all the time
to help me deconstruct complicated mu
On Oct 14, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Nicolás Sanguinetti wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Scott Taylor
wrote:
On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Joaquin Rivera Padron wrote:
hello there,
how do you tipically spec private methods? The thing is Ï have
something
like this:
def some_method
com
On 14 Oct 2009, at 20:49, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Joaquin Rivera Padron wrote:
private
def complex_method...
def other_complex_methods ...
and the two complex methods can get really tricky to get right, I
would like to be able to write specs for them, how do you do t
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
>
> Most of those options suck (esp. 1, 2, 3, & 4) - usually it represents a
> design flaw (you are doing too much in your class).
I disagree that the simple existence of private methods is a sign of a
design flaw. There are plenty of use case
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
>
> On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Joaquin Rivera Padron wrote:
>
> hello there,
> how do you tipically spec private methods? The thing is Ï have something
> like this:
>
> def some_method
> complex_method + other_complex_methods
> end
>
> priv
On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Joaquin Rivera Padron wrote:
hello there,
how do you tipically spec private methods? The thing is Ï have
something like this:
def some_method
complex_method + other_complex_methods
end
private
def complex_method...
def other_complex_methods ...
and the two
hello there,
how do you tipically spec private methods? The thing is Ï have something
like this:
def some_method
complex_method + other_complex_methods
end
private
def complex_method...
def other_complex_methods ...
and the two complex methods can get really tricky to get right, I would like
Actually it seems someone read my mind... just tried out the patch in
#896 and it seems to work great. So, problem solved ;)
-- Elliot
On 10/14/09 1:18 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Elliot Winkler
wrote:
Is there any reason why the ModelExampleGroup in rspe
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Elliot Winkler
wrote:
> Is there any reason why the ModelExampleGroup in rspec-rails inherits from
> ActiveSupport::TestCase and not ActiveRecord::TestCase? I noticed this
> because I tried to use assert_queries in one of my specs and obviously it
> told me it didn
On 14 Oct 2009, at 17:01, Stephen Eley wrote:
Did your brain try to warn you? You're part of the system, you
know. >8->
Well I already know not to do `should !=`, so I don't do it. But I
was suggesting that RSpec could make an AST pass over the specs to
pick up this, which is undetect
Is there any reason why the ModelExampleGroup in rspec-rails inherits
from ActiveSupport::TestCase and not ActiveRecord::TestCase? I noticed
this because I tried to use assert_queries in one of my specs and
obviously it told me it didn't know what that was. Not a huge problem, I
can always add
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Ashley Moran
wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2009, at 02:25, Stephen Eley wrote:
>
>> [...] these quirks are caught when your specs
>> pass and you haven't done anything to make them pass yet. >8->
>
> Really? I just tried `1.should != 2' and got no warnings.
Did your brain
>From the Cucumber list, I was pointed to this:
http://www.sinatrarb.com/testing.htmlAbout half way down, it details how to
use Sinatra with RSpec.
I've only had time for a glance, so I'm not sure how complete it is, but if
I need to engage my brain at all when I get time to play with it, I'll take
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:14 AM, doug livesey wrote:
> Could anybody post resources on using RSpec with Sinatra?
There's no official resource that I'm aware of, but google says there
are over 2 million to choose from :)
If anybody has specific resources they'd like to put focus on, feel
free to
Could anybody post resources on using RSpec with Sinatra?Thanks,
Doug.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On 14 Oct 2009, at 02:25, Stephen Eley wrote:
The AST pass over the spec files already exists. It's what Ruby does
when you run the specs, and these quirks are caught when your specs
pass and you haven't done anything to make them pass yet. >8->
Really? I just tried `1.should != 2' and got
21 matches
Mail list logo
