On Dec 22, 2011, at 12:33 PM, LeeQ wrote:
> Ah, I see what you are saying. But no, I still want the exception to act
> like an exception. My problem is that I'll have a test fail for reasons
> unknown, and I then I need to open the test logs to find the exception. I'd
> like those exception
On Dec 22, 2011, at 11:33 AM, LeeQ wrote:
> Ah, I see what you are saying. But no, I still want the exception to act
> like an exception. My problem is that I'll have a test fail for reasons
> unknown, and I then I need to open the test logs to find the exception. I'd
> like those exception
Ah, I see what you are saying. But no, I still want the exception to act
like an exception. My problem is that I'll have a test fail for reasons
unknown, and I then I need to open the test logs to find the exception.
I'd like those exceptions to show up in my test output so I don't have to
d
On Dec 22, 2011, at 8:25 AM, LeeQ wrote:
> Puts does work. That's not what I'm looking for.
>
> I want all error messages (like `undefined local variable or method `junk'
> for...` ) to show up in my rspec out put in the same way as `puts`.
> ___
> r
Puts does work. That's not what I'm looking for.
I want all error messages (like `undefined local variable or method `junk'
for...` ) to show up in my rspec out put in *the same way as* `puts`.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
htt
On Dec 16, 2011, at 8:46 AM, LeeQ wrote:
> I am using Capybara in combination with rspec for integration testing
> of rails apps.
Even though you are using Capybara, they are still just specs. No reason why
"puts" won't work.
>
> I would like any errors (routing errors, errors in a controller
I am using Capybara in combination with rspec for integration testing
of rails apps.
I would like any errors (routing errors, errors in a controller,
anything) generated during a test to be printed the same as "puts"
statements in rspec's output. Is this possible? Additionally, is this
a reasonab
