On 15 Jan 2009, at 22:13, James Byrne wrote:
We have, in consequence, gone through and removed the term login from
all code use as well; replacing it with authenticate. So, for
example,
the authentication form now says: To Proceed Please Authenticate
Yourself
I am sometimes (ok, mostly) sl
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:13 PM, James Byrne wrote:
> Matt Wynne wrote:
>
> >
> > +1 to all that. I feel like you get lectured quite a bit by this list
> > James, but you'd do well to heed the advice of some battle-hardened
> > journeymen, IMO.
> >
>
> I thought that you might like to know that,
Matt Wynne wrote:
>
> +1 to all that. I feel like you get lectured quite a bit by this list
> James, but you'd do well to heed the advice of some battle-hardened
> journeymen, IMO.
>
I thought that you might like to know that, after reflecting on this
overnight, I took this matter up in a desi
Matt Wynne wrote:
>
> I actually rather like the unambiguous, and jargon-free 'current
> authenticated session' phraseology, but I'm not one of your users, so
> that doesn't really matter!
I do too, but I am not the president either...
>
> I have one more suggestion. From all these different w
On 13 Jan 2009, at 20:10, James Byrne wrote:
Stephen Eley wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:41 AM, James Byrne
wrote:
Logins are a pervasive feature of this application
Which is exactly why you should standardize. If you try to be
accommodating toward unclear communication, you're just g
Stephen Eley wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:41 AM, James Byrne
> wrote:
>>
>> Logins are a pervasive feature of this application
>
> Which is exactly why you should standardize. If you try to be
> accommodating toward unclear communication, you're just going to
> create confusion when peop
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>
> On 13 Jan 2009, at 17:14, Mark Wilden wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:41 AM, James Byrne wrote:
>>
>> Logins are a pervasive feature of this application and so, rather than
>> waste effort on policing the feature syntax, I thought it b
Matt Wynne wrote:
.
>
> +1 to all that. I feel like you get lectured quite a bit by this list
> James, but you'd do well to heed the advice of some battle-hardened
> journeymen, IMO.
>
>
I do hope that I do not give the impression that I resent anything that
anyone has written in response to my
On 13 Jan 2009, at 17:14, Mark Wilden wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:41 AM, James Byrne
wrote:
Logins are a pervasive feature of this application and so, rather than
waste effort on policing the feature syntax, I thought it best just to
accommodate the likely variations from the start.
P
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:41 AM, James Byrne wrote:
>
> Logins are a pervasive feature of this application
Which is exactly why you should standardize. If you try to be
accommodating toward unclear communication, you're just going to
create confusion when people need to get things done. Someon
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:41 AM, James Byrne wrote:
>
>>
>> Logins are a pervasive feature of this application and so, rather than
>> waste effort on policing the feature syntax, I thought it best just to
>> accommodate the likely variations
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:41 AM, James Byrne wrote:
>
> Logins are a pervasive feature of this application and so, rather than
> waste effort on policing the feature syntax, I thought it best just to
> accommodate the likely variations from the start.
Premature flexibility is one of the roots o
Thanks for all the advise and corrections. I ended up with this:
When /\bsee a (?:log|sign)(?: ?)[io]n success message/ do
# login | log in | logon | log on | signin ...
Then "see the login ok message"
end
As to the issue of whether this is being too clever by half: Perhaps.
I have to consi
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Tim Glen wrote:
>
>> This is giving me an error:
>>
>> When /?:(log|sign)?:(i|o)n success message/ do
>> Then "welcome message"
>> end
>>
>
>
> I could be wrong, but I believe you're looking for this instead?
> When /(?:log|sign)(?:i|o)n success message/ do
>
A
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:50 PM, James Byrne wrote:
>
> When /?:(log|sign)?:(i|o)n success message/ do
> Then "welcome message"
> end
It's a syntax error on that first question mark, the one right after
the slash. A ? in a regex signifies that whatever came just before it
may appear 0 or 1 time
On 1/12/09 2:50 PM, James Byrne wrote:
This is giving me an error:
When /?:(log|sign)?:(i|o)n success message/ do
Then "welcome message"
end
The ?: needs to be inside your group if you don't want to capture it... so:
When /(?:log|sign)(?:i|o)n success message/ do
FWIW, I have found ht
This is giving me an error:
When /?:(log|sign)?:(i|o)n success message/ do
Then "welcome message"
end
I could be wrong, but I believe you're looking for this instead?
When /(?:log|sign)(?:i|o)n success message/ do
hope that helps,
timg
___
rspec-u
This is giving me an error:
When /?:(log|sign)?:(i|o)n success message/ do
Then "welcome message"
end
To the effect that:
/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
`gem_original_require':
./features/components/login/step_definitions/login_steps.rb:21: invalid
regular express
18 matches
Mail list logo
