>
> On 20 May 2009, at 09:33, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On 20 May 2009, at 00:04, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>>
> Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I'd prefer to go with a solution
> in
> line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
>
Sorry, forgot to get b
On 20 May 2009, at 09:33, aslak hellesoy wrote:
On 20 May 2009, at 00:04, aslak hellesoy wrote:
Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I'd prefer to go with a
solution in
line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
Sorry, forgot to get back to you Luke.
I'm convinced. We'll a
>
> On 20 May 2009, at 00:04, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>>> Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I'd prefer to go with a solution in
>>> line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, forgot to get back to you Luke.
>>
>> I'm convinced. We'll add an AfterStep hook. Do you wa
> On May 19, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Luke Melia wrote:
>
>> On May 19, 2009, at 7:04 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>
>>> I'm convinced. We'll add an AfterStep hook. Do you want to give a stab
>>> at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
>>> features/after_block_exceptions.feature for a good example of
On May 19, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Luke Melia wrote:
On May 19, 2009, at 7:04 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
I'm convinced. We'll add an AfterStep hook. Do you want to give a
stab
at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
features/after_block_exceptions.feature for a good example of the
style we li
Ben Mabey wrote:
Luke Melia wrote:
Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I'd prefer to go with a solution
in line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
Cheers,
Luke
Have you seen what Matt added recently?
https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211/tickets/330-gracefully-hand
Luke Melia wrote:
Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I'd prefer to go with a solution
in line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
Cheers,
Luke
Have you seen what Matt added recently?
https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211/tickets/330-gracefully-handle-exceptions-in-a
On May 19, 2009, at 7:04 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
I'm convinced. We'll add an AfterStep hook. Do you want to give a stab
at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
features/after_block_exceptions.feature for a good example of the
style we like...
Sounds good. I'll give it a whirl tonight.
On 20 May 2009, at 00:04, aslak hellesoy wrote:
Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I'd prefer to go with a
solution in
line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
Sorry, forgot to get back to you Luke.
I'm convinced. We'll add an AfterStep hook. Do you want to give a stab
at
> Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I'd prefer to go with a solution in
> line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
>
Sorry, forgot to get back to you Luke.
I'm convinced. We'll add an AfterStep hook. Do you want to give a stab
at a patch? Start by writing a feature - see
feature
Any further thoughts on this, Aslak? I'd prefer to go with a solution
in line with the future direction of Cucumber if possible.
Cheers,
Luke
On May 15, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Luke Melia wrote:
On May 15, 2009, at 3:36 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
Thanks for doing that. I have one more favour to a
On May 15, 2009, at 3:36 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
Thanks for doing that. I have one more favour to ask: Can you show me
an example of a StepDefinition that would cause the file to be
created?
That is a tougher question, because any browser interaction that
causes an HTTP request to the app
> On May 15, 2009, at 10:16 AM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>> Can you show me the code you would want to put in AfterStep that would
>> detect a 500 error?
>
> I've written a simple piece of rack middleware (included below) that will
> create a file in the event a 500 is raised. I would clear the file
On May 15, 2009, at 10:16 AM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
Can you show me the code you would want to put in AfterStep that would
detect a 500 error?
I've written a simple piece of rack middleware (included below) that
will create a file in the event a 500 is raised. I would clear the
file before
> On May 15, 2009, at 4:25 AM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I don't remember what happened to AfterStep. I think we
>> had it at some point, but can't see it in the codebase. Did I remove
>> it? Or was that back in the pre-Cucumber days? Help me remember
>> here...
>
> I'm not sure. I s
On May 15, 2009, at 4:25 AM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
To be honest, I don't remember what happened to AfterStep. I think we
had it at some point, but can't see it in the codebase. Did I remove
it? Or was that back in the pre-Cucumber days? Help me remember
here...
I'm not sure. I saw a reference
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:25 AM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
> I'm not so sure I like the idea of AfterStep - smells like a
> workaround for something that belongs elsewhere. Can't your have
> selenium-rc (or a helper method you create around it) raise those
> exceptions?
>
> Given /bla/ do
> # don't
> I'm trying to make sure that my cucumber selenium suite fails if my Rails
> app returns any 500 response codes. I'm working on what the best way to
> identify this state, but the question I'd like to put to the list is this:
> If I want to check for this error condition in an After or AfterStep,
On 15 May 2009, at 07:01, Luke Melia wrote:
I'm trying to make sure that my cucumber selenium suite fails if my
Rails app returns any 500 response codes. I'm working on what the
best way to identify this state, but the question I'd like to put to
the list is this: If I want to check for th
I'm trying to make sure that my cucumber selenium suite fails if my
Rails app returns any 500 response codes. I'm working on what the best
way to identify this state, but the question I'd like to put to the
list is this: If I want to check for this error condition in an After
or AfterStep,
20 matches
Mail list logo
