I had a similar problem with rake: try
ruby script/spec
On 25/03/2008, Eric Harris-Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> RSpec 1.1.3 is failing for me out of the box. I installed both rspec
> and rspec_on_rails using svn following the instructions on the site.
> Then I used the rsp
> Are you sure you are running the outer-most group, and not an inner
> group or example? I just tried this file as test.spec.rb:
>describe "add_descendants_from_xml" do
> it "should add descendants" do
>true.should be_false
> end
>
> describe "with attributes" do
>
Edvard Majakari wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Ashley Moran
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > sufficient to me, but of course, YNMDFTOM.
>
>> Please put me out of my misery and explain the acronym :D
>
> My bad. My favorite hobby is to invent new acronyms on the fly, of
> which th
James Deville wrote:
> Using the -e option from the command line, you can also specify a
> string which is to be run, this is a way to run only one describe
> block, or one it block. The rake task method suggested by Edvard is
> the other option
I'm having problems with the -e option - it doesn't
I found it a little confusing to stub my authentication filters as well, but
figured it out with a little help from the interwebs:
in spec_helper i have this:
describe "a controller requiring login", :shared => true do
it "should have login_required set in the before filter" do
contro
Oh, sorry, and this line in your specs to actually mock the filter:
mock_login_required
:)
On 07/03/2008, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I found it a little confusing to stub my authentication filters as well,
> but figured it out with a little help from the in
no, just the ruby forum. I'll try the rails list next. thanks
On 05/03/2008, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Max Williams
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, the results are exactly the same, down to th
ests don't like. :(
On 05/03/2008, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:40 AM, Max Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey folks
> >
> > I have a bunch of classes that are polymorphs, with has_many_polymorph
Hey folks
I have a bunch of classes that are polymorphs, with has_many_polymorphs
(they are all 'labellable', which is similar to being 'taggable' in the
acts_as_taggable scheme). I have a couple of modules,
LabellableInstanceMethods and LabellableClassMethods in a file called
labellable_methods.
Never mind, i'm an idiot, the problem was that i broke my Property class
with the has_many_polymorphs declaration, so the spec couldn't load it.
Sorry!
On 27/02/2008, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have a class Property that was testing fine until i added
I have a class Property that was testing fine until i added the following to
it:
has_many_polymorphs :labelled,
:from => [:instructional_objects, :lessons, :courses],
:through => :labels,
:dependent => :destroy
(in other words, 'labels' is a join table through which various objects
hehe, tbh even if the documentation had been there i probably wouldn't have
read it :)
thanks!
On 26/02/2008, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Max Williams
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
>
On 26/02/2008, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Max Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> This does not happen for you implicitly when you use before(:all)
> because there is no mechanism for running a group of
I'm using before(:all) because i want to create a single 'family' of tree
objects and then run tests against it. If i have all the object creation as
a before(:each) then the database will be even more full of duplications,
won't it?
My problem, though, is that the data is left over from the last
Hi all
I'm having problems with data in my specs - i'm probably just going about
things the wrong way though.
I'm testing a model (called Property) that uses acts_as_tree, and for now
have just done some specs for the basic acts_as_tree functionality - just as
a sanity check, i thought, but i'm g
doh...dammit, i thought i'd tried that. I'm losing it...
thanks!
On 22/02/2008, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Max Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm already successfully testing before_filter
I'm already successfully testing before_filters in application_controller
courtesy of this blog post:
http://www.movesonrails.com/articles/2008/01/23/spec-ing-your-application-controller
However, i can;'t work out how to test the sort of method that is added to
application_controller so that all c
er?(allow_user_to_pass=true)
controller.stub!(:admin_user?).and_return(allow_user_to_pass)
end
def mock_current_user(id = 1)
@user = mock_model(User, :to_param => id.to_s, :id => 1)
controller.stub!(:current_user).and_return(@user)
end
end
<<<<<<<<&l
I have a fixture for one of my tables that i use in some model tests. The
data in it is messing up some other tests for a different model, that
doesn't ask for the fixture - isn't the fixture data supposed to be cleared
out of the test db in between tests, and only be present if specifically
asked
t; It depends on a few things.
>
> Max - what versions of rspec and rails are you using?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2008 8:29 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a User cont
great minds :)
thanks guys!
On 18/02/2008, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2008 8:43 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ah yes of course :)
> >
> > So, now, "should_not be_success" passes ok, but should i b
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Won't the exception get turned into a http return code from the get?
>
> On Feb 18, 2008 8:29 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have a User controller where users aren't added with the usual
> > new/create actions. I'
I have a User controller where users aren't added with the usual new/create
actions. I'm trying to set it so that it raises when 'new' is called but it
doesn't seem to be working - here's the method, test and test result. Can
anyone see why it's not working?
#in controller
def new
raise "Us
Done, thanks everyone.
On 14/02/2008, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Max Williams
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm new to rspec (and coding in general) but would it break a lot of
> > people'
I'm new to rspec (and coding in general) but would it break a lot of
people's tests if redirect_to was changed to do this by default? It's what
i expected it to do, personally, that is to pass if the given :action and
:controller match up. If i pass a url string, and it's missing the params,
then
perfect - that's the method i was looking for. Thanks!
On 14/02/2008, Rick DeNatale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/14/08, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi David - thanks for replying. The literal doesn't work either,
> because of
>
s private.
thanks
max
On 13/02/2008, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 12:26 PM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm testing a controller action that redirects to a different
> action/view,
> > sending throu
I'm having a similar problem - my application controller has the UserSystem
module included, and that's where the login_required method lives. In a
spec for another controller, which has before_filter :login_required, i'm
trying to stub the login_required method to just return true, but i think m
I'm testing a controller action that redirects to a different action/view,
sending through some params. In my test, i'm only specifying the controller
and action that it should redirect to, but the additional params are making
it fail! Here's my test:
it "should redirect to batch_saved after
29 matches
Mail list logo
