2009/3/28 Yi :
> How can I test flash.now[:key] is being set in a controller test? Both
> flash[:key] and flash.now[:key].should == message didn't work
>
> I can use response.session["flash"][:key].should == message . Just looks bad
That's odd. In a controller example, you should have a #flash m
Going forward, what do people think about being able to say
mock.should_receive(:debug).with_block { |log_block|
# execute log_block, and check its return value
}
Thoughts?
Peter
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Yun Huang Yong wrote:
I don't know about RSpactor, but autospec will keep track of failing
specs and re-run them along with changed specs and specs for changed
files. It won't run the entire suite until everything has passed.
You could temporarily add a dummy example somewhere in your suite
which always fails. That wa
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> I am facing a similar problem. Actually what happens, is that when I
> edit specs and then save, then autospec detects it and runs the specs,
> but when I edit the application's code only, then autospec doesn't run.
> Is that a normal behav
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Emmanuel Pinault wrote:
> So I have a file with my steps written like this
>
> require 'steputils'
>
> Given "some step description 1 " do
>SomeClass.post(args)
> end
>
> Given "some step description 2 that is slighty different for better
> readability "
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:50 PM, s.ross wrote:
> This question has, I'm sure, been asked and answered hundreds of times, but
> I was unable to turn up anything in Google. Here's the issue: I have some
> code in a Rails app in the lib/ directory that affects how views are
> rendered. Specifically
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Andrew Premdas wrote:
> then we have
>
> 1) Defined semantic tags that the designer should not touch
> 2) Not relied on any html elements that a designer might change
> 3) Created a step that works with the meaning of the UI not its presentation
>
> So what do you
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Tim Walker wrote:
> Using AUTOFEATURE=true autospec and have a feature with multiple
> scenarios. When we save the feature or steps file AUTOTEST seems to
> only run the last scenario. Is this a known issue or are we doing
> something boneheaded, or both!?
Neithe
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Antonio Faust45 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> rake spec
> ** Invoke spec (first_time, not_needed)
> and specs not started!
Oh! I' having the same problem and I just solved it! Well, half-solved it.
Rake, like make, operates on files. If you say "make somebinary
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Kero van Gelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ AUTOFEATURE=true autospec # bug! prompt returns immediately, ZenTest
> gem not a dependency? a warning that autotest was not found would be nice.
Huh. The autospec command comes from RSpec; do you have this issue
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:47 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll have to give autospec another shot then I guess. I have given up on it
> as it takes over 7 minutes to 'boot up' with our test suite, and I find it
> misses too many things it should have run, such that I have to hit CTRL
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WDYT? Possible?
Possibly. :)
That does sound like it might be possible. On the other hand, in
practice, I've found that the current implementation works the way I'd
want it to at least 95% of the time. Personally, I'm not
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Andrew Premdas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh but cucumber features so want to be idented on the I
>
> Scenario: Anonymous user can not duplicate a un-activated account
>Given I am an anonymous user
> And a registered user Fred exists
> When I signup a
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about a more sophisticated mechanism for this, using code
> coverage. If autotest / rspactor was able to record and remember the LOC
> covered by each scenario / example, it would be possible to do more foc
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And class variables are problematic in Rails in development mode because of
> class reloading.
Yes. They are.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peeja/3056849146/
Peter
___
rspec-us
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:12 PM, James Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Byrne wrote:
>
>>
>> I understood that the purpose of autotest was that it ONLY ran a test
>> for the changed file. However, with this setup, if I touch any file
>> anywhere in the project then the full suite of featur
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> If you don't use class << self, you have to work on class variables and
> you can't use the attr_* shorthands to access the singleton's variables.
Actually, instance variables in a "def self.*" method still ref
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:04 PM, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Rails, the primary key, by default 'id', is used all over the
> place. However, Ruby now deprecates the use of constructs like:
>
> @post = Post.find(:first)
> @post_id = @post.id
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Pau Cor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Pau Cor wrote:
>> > /\\s*\Token\:\<\/b\>\s*[a-f0-9]{40}\s*\<\/p\>/m
>>
>> On second thought, you might want to make that regex more generic. When
>> y
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Pau Cor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really understand what you are getting at. However, as I less
> experienced developer (my degree is actually in business) I have found
> that having more unit tests (for models and controllers) helps ensure
> that I write bett
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, aslak hellesoy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How will people know that a method is part of an API? Can we simply say that
> if it has RDoc it's part of the API and stable, and if it doesn't it's not?
> (We can still RDoc non-API code, just put :nodoc: on it so it d
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Andrew Premdas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting ... so this establishes a convention to use in features
> that all Givens are written in the past tense and all whens in the
> present tense.
Actually, I put both in the present tense, but Givens describe stat
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Byrne wrote:
>
>> It is not immediately clear to me whether this behaviour is
>> intended or not. Can someone provide the answer?
>>
>
> After reading the wiki I think what you are seeing is the expected
> behaviour.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Harry Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last week I installed Cucumber 0.1.8 for my Rails app and both
> 'cucumber features' and 'rake features' worked fine. Features and
> steps were evaluated.
>
> Today I upgraded Cucumber to 0.1.9 and tried to set up autotest.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:02 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps the thing to do is really skip them. If you think that is the
> way to go, please add a ticket.
Ticketed:
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211-cucumber/tickets/90-really-skip-skipped-steps
I've just noticed that my "skipped" steps are actually running, but
their errors are being swallowed. They can print to the screen,
however. Is that intentional? It's certainly not what I was
expecting. I assumed skipped steps were...skipped.
Peter
_
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:01 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a cool idea - can you put a feature request in lighthouse?
Done:
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211-cucumber/tickets/87-yield-existing-world-object-to-world-block
Peter
_
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:59 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:30 AM, aslak hellesoy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> World do
>> world = Object.new
>> world.extend(Logging::Logger)
>> world
>> end
>
> World do
> returning Cucumber::Rails::World do |world
28 matches
Mail list logo
