Re: [rspec-users] Cucumber generator

Try gem install cucumber-rails In a recent release the generators were split from the main project. Sent from my iPhone On 13 Jan 2010, at 06:38, Onno van der Straaten > wrote: Hi, I'm new to RSpec and Cucumber and I'm following the RSpec book. I have cucumber gem installed but when I use

[rspec-users] Cucumber generator

Hi, I'm new to RSpec and Cucumber and I'm following the RSpec book. I have cucumber gem installed but when I use script/generate cucumber it responds with Couldn't find 'cucumber' generator? Thanks, Onno ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge

Re: [rspec-users] Stub activerecord find given instance?

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Saverio Miroddi wrote: > David Chelimsky wrote: > > >>> MyModel.stub(:find).with(42).and_return(myModel) > >> Didn't work as expected - I'll do a bit of research and post again. > > What is expected? What are you trying to accomplish? > > Example in horror-code: >

Re: [rspec-users] Stub activerecord find given instance?

David Chelimsky wrote: >>> MyModel.stub(:find).with(42).and_return(myModel) >> Didn't work as expected - I'll do a bit of research and post again. > What is expected? What are you trying to accomplish? Example in horror-code: ## class MyController

Re: [rspec-users] nested steps

> > You do realise you can already nest contexts don't you? That makes   > much more sense to me than what you've suggested. > Hi Roger, Here's an example of nesting contexts that Matt is talking about: http://gist.github.com/275798 Peace, Phillip __

[rspec-users] default to just call the method?

Any interest in the following idea? a.should include?("1:4") # if there's no matcher called include? then just call include? or something along those lines? -r ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: [rspec-users] [ANN] rspec 1.3.0 Released

> rspec version 1.3.0 has been released! Thanks for the release. -r ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Re: [rspec-users] nested steps

On 12 Jan 2010, at 22:40, rogerdpack wrote: Question. Currently rspec appears to allow for a two-step test system, like context "abc" it 'should do y' do end end It might be convenient to have an arbitrary number of nests, like context "abc" it 'should do y' do it 'should also be able

Re: [rspec-users] nested steps

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:40 PM, rogerdpack wrote: > Question. > Currently rspec appears to allow for a two-step test system, like > > context "abc" > it 'should do y' do > end > end > > It might be convenient to have an arbitrary number of nests, like > > context "abc" > it 'should do y' do >

[rspec-users] nested steps

Question. Currently rspec appears to allow for a two-step test system, like context "abc" it 'should do y' do end end It might be convenient to have an arbitrary number of nests, like context "abc" it 'should do y' do it 'should also be able to do x' end end end Thoughts? -r _

Re: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for

By the way, does this spec: {:get => '/path'}.should route_to(...) make this spec redundant?: params_from(:get, '/path').should == {...} They read the same, but it feels like they each check one end of the route's translation. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. ___

Re: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for

Randy Harmon wrote: > On 1/11/10 9:22 PM, Nick Hoffman wrote: >>> Cheers, >>> David >>> >> Thanks for that, David. I updated my spec (http://codepad.org/F828X7Fg). >> For some reason though, it's still failing: http://codepad.org/s65Ckubc >> >> Just in case, this is what I have in routes.rb: