On Oct 22, 2008, at 9:46 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 19, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Oct 18, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Pat Maddox wrote:
Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTE
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
>> Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Pat Maddox wrote:
>>>
Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As for #3, I'
On Oct 19, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
BTW, Pat - Have you still been working on integrating test spy into
rspec?
Nope, I found not_a_mock [1] and it works well.
Also, relevant to the Screw.Unit and the spying threads, I've hacked
together a Javascript mocking/stubbing framewor
On Oct 19, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Oct 18, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Pat Maddox wrote:
Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
As for #3, I'm
pretty sure that Ruby's method_missing allows one to raise an
exception easily. Not sure what a
Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Oct 18, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
>> Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> As for #3, I'm
>>> pretty sure that Ruby's method_missing allows one to raise an
>>> exception easily. Not sure what a Javascript mocking framework would
On Oct 18, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Stephen Eley wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In Javascript, it might look more or less like this:
var old_method = obj[my_method];
my_obj[my_method] = my_return_value;
That's an interesting syntax comparison, th
On Oct 18, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Pat Maddox wrote:
Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
As for #3, I'm
pretty sure that Ruby's method_missing allows one to raise an
exception easily. Not sure what a Javascript mocking framework would
do in this case.
I'm not sure that I buy that this featu
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In Javascript, it might look more or less like this:
>
> var old_method = obj[my_method];
> my_obj[my_method] = my_return_value;
That's an interesting syntax comparison, thanks, but not really what I
was reacting to. Th
Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As for #3, I'm
> pretty sure that Ruby's method_missing allows one to raise an
> exception easily. Not sure what a Javascript mocking framework would
> do in this case.
I'm not sure that I buy that this feature is very important. Both
Javascript and Ru
On Oct 17, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Stephen Eley wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
"The dynamic nature of JavaScript makes mocking frameworks mostly
unnecessary"
A small but interesting difference from using Ruby, Rspec and its
built-in
mocking fra
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Joseph Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "The dynamic nature of JavaScript makes mocking frameworks mostly
> unnecessary"
>
> A small but interesting difference from using Ruby, Rspec and its built-in
> mocking framework.
So... Wait. Is the implication here th
On of the things I've noticed with ScrewUnit is to quote the ScrewUnit wiki:
"The dynamic nature of JavaScript makes mocking frameworks mostly
unnecessary"
A small but interesting difference from using Ruby, Rspec and its
built-in mocking framework.
--
Joseph Wilk
http://www.joesniff.co.uk
On Oct 17, 2008, at 10:41 am, Matt Wynne wrote:
I'm also interested in this, as we're currently deciding which route
to go.
I like the philosophy behind screw unit - it feels like the team
want to give us RSpec for javascript.
That's the feeling I got, that SU is trying to be a cleaner,
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I just wondered if anyone here has used Screw.Unit[2], and if so, how
> does it compare to RSpec? It seems to offer many of the features of RSpec
> (with the notable exception of shared behaviours).
I just want to thank
On 17 Oct 2008, at 06:44, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Oct 16, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
Hope this isn't OT. I'm currently contemplating using the Dojo[1]
JavaScript framework, and I suspect it's powerful enough that using
Cucumber features and Celerity alone will quickly leave
On Oct 16, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
Hope this isn't OT. I'm currently contemplating using the Dojo[1]
JavaScript framework, and I suspect it's powerful enough that using
Cucumber features and Celerity alone will quickly leave me wanting
lower-level unit specs for the JS.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Hope this isn't OT. I'm currently contemplating using the Dojo[1]
> JavaScript framework, and I suspect it's powerful enough that using Cucumber
> features and Celerity alone will quickly leave me wanting lower-leve
Hi
Hope this isn't OT. I'm currently contemplating using the Dojo[1]
JavaScript framework, and I suspect it's powerful enough that using
Cucumber features and Celerity alone will quickly leave me wanting
lower-level unit specs for the JS.
So I just wondered if anyone here has used Screw.
18 matches
Mail list logo
