On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Premdas wrote:
> >
> > Personally I now think nested steps are evil - but thats another story :)
>
> It sounds like an entertaining one. I'd love to hear why sometime.
> (Though whether the right place
Em 02-11-2009 04:48, Joseph.DelCioppio escreveu:
Guys,
Getting used to doing BDD, and in my current project I'm trying to
spec out my model, and in particular the fact that my model must
validate that one of its fields are unique; in this case, the
customer's email address.
Simple enough model,
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Conrad Taylor wrote:
> Hi, 'rake spec' failed to run on Ruby 1.9.1p243 and RSpec 1.2.9.
Hi Conrad,
If this was a problem in the gem, it is now fixed:
$ rvm 1.9.1
$ which ruby
/Users/david/.rvm/ruby-1.9.1-p243/bin/ruby
$ rake spec
...
1522 examples, 0 failures,
Guys,
Getting used to doing BDD, and in my current project I'm trying to
spec out my model, and in particular the fact that my model must
validate that one of its fields are unique; in this case, the
customer's email address.
Simple enough model, a customer, who only has two
fields. :email_addre
Dear David!
I use rpec for the several years and almost in every prject I apply the
following
patch. Today I thought that maybe you will accept it so that others may have
it's benefit.
diff --git
a/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/formatter/base_text_formatter.rb
b/vendor/plugins/rspec/l
Hi, 'rake spec' failed to run on Ruby 1.9.1p243 and RSpec 1.2.9. I'm
getting the following error message when I run the specs:
/opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.1/gems/rspec-1.2.9/spec/spec/runner/
option_parser_spec.rb:21:in `block (2 levels) in ':
wrong number of arguments (0 for 1) (ArgumentError)
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:37 PM, rogerdpack wrote:
> with 1.8.6 + rspec 1.2.9 (sorry couldn't try trunk, see previous post)
>
> I get:
>
>
> C:\dev\ruby\old\arguments>spec spec\arguments_spec.rb
> ..F 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00)
> .F 0.00 0.00 0.00
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM, rogerdpack wrote:
> Is the following expected?
>
Absolutely not. I moved some things around and failed to update the
manifest. This is fixed in git HEAD now, so please update and try again.
Cheers,
David
>
>
> C:\dev\ruby\downloads\rspec>rake gem
> (in C:/dev/r
On Nov 4, 2009, at 4:51 PM, rogerdpack wrote:
I'm interested in helping the documentation for rspec, ex:
http://rspec.info/
described similarly to how this person feels (that there's not too
much "getting started" docu).
http://creativedeletion.com/2007/05/27/the-new-rspec-format-testingspeci
I'm interested in helping the documentation for rspec, ex:
http://rspec.info/
described similarly to how this person feels (that there's not too
much "getting started" docu).
http://creativedeletion.com/2007/05/27/the-new-rspec-format-testingspecing-in-ruby/
Is there anywhere to fork or what no
Perhaps it would be useful to do some parsing of the messages...
it "should raise an Exception if record is invalid" do
end
# expects that block to raise
Thoughts?
-r
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mail
with 1.8.6 + rspec 1.2.9 (sorry couldn't try trunk, see previous post)
I get:
C:\dev\ruby\old\arguments>spec spec\arguments_spec.rb
..F 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00)
.F 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00)
0.015000 0.00 0.015000 ( 0.015625)
.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Premdas wrote:
>
> Personally I now think nested steps are evil - but thats another story :)
It sounds like an entertaining one. I'd love to hear why sometime.
(Though whether the right place for it would be here or the Cucumber
list, I couldn't say.)
> H
Is the following expected?
C:\dev\ruby\downloads\rspec>rake gem
(in C:/dev/ruby/downloads/rspec)
in rdoc 2.4.3
rake aborted!
Don't know how to build task 'lib/spec/matchers/extensions/
instance_exec.rb'
(See full trace by running task with --trace)
Thanks.
-r
___
2009/11/4 Stephen Eley
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Andrew Premdas
> wrote:
> >
> > Putting lots of
> > view details in the features (and I should see a wibble field etc. ...)
> > pollutes this map with clutter that is not relevant to the "business"
> > context. So view specs seem like a r
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Andrew Premdas wrote:
>
> Putting lots of
> view details in the features (and I should see a wibble field etc. ...)
> pollutes this map with clutter that is not relevant to the "business"
> context. So view specs seem like a really good place to spec all this
> det
2009/10/29 nruth
> Hi Guys
>
> I'm going to put the cat amongst the pigeons here in the hope of some
> clarity falling out of the sky on me.
> My question is this: In a world with Cucumber what is the value of
> view specs?
>
> In the community (railscamp, for example) there are a fair number of
On 21 Oct 2009, at 16:45, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Oct 19, 2009, at 2:12 PM, iain wrote:
I use be_all(&:some_predicate) to test if all the elements in the
collection are valid, which works, but when I try to test the
inverse, it fails.
I'm not certain, but I _think_ that the problem is the w
18 matches
Mail list logo
