Warning - bit of a ramble below!
On 29/01/2008, Edvard Majakari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Not if you fill it out...and the BDD way is to write one example at a
> > time, not a complete spec beforehand.
>
> I've done it this way too (being lazy), but is it really good thing?
> Often I get mo
On Jan 29, 2008 5:43 AM, Edvard Majakari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not if you fill it out...and the BDD way is to write one example at a
> > time, not a complete spec beforehand.
>
> I've done it this way too (being lazy), but is it really good thing?
> Often I get more insight on how an inter
> Not if you fill it out...and the BDD way is to write one example at a
> time, not a complete spec beforehand.
I've done it this way too (being lazy), but is it really good thing?
Often I get more insight on how an interface should look like,
if I think even superficially what kinds of services a
On Jan 28, 2008 5:42 PM, James Deville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Along these lines, I also think that a empty spec should be failing or
> at least pending.
+1
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo
Along these lines, I also think that a empty spec should be failing or
at least pending.
On Jan 27, 2008, at 6:50 AM, Matt Darby wrote:
> Ah, I was unaware of this. Thanks for the pointer.
>
> On Jan 27, 2008, at 2:42 AM, Francois Wurmus wrote:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> one way of doing this is to l
Ah, I was unaware of this. Thanks for the pointer.
On Jan 27, 2008, at 2:42 AM, Francois Wurmus wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> one way of doing this is to leave the block out and just write:
> it "should bla bla"
>
> No 'do', no 'end'. The example will be pending this way.
>
>
> François
___
Hi Matt,
one way of doing this is to leave the block out and just write:
it "should bla bla"
No 'do', no 'end'. The example will be pending this way.
François
Matt Darby schrieb:
> It seems to me that the RSpec bundle's 'it' snippet is in need of some
> love. By default, a newly inserted
On Jan 26, 2008 10:50 PM, Matt Darby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that the RSpec bundle's 'it' snippet is in need of some love.
> By default, a newly inserted spec passes.
Not if you fill it out...and the BDD way is to write one example at a
time, not a complete spec beforehand.
>
It seems to me that the RSpec bundle's 'it' snippet is in need of some
love. By default, a newly inserted spec passes. This seems odd as it
is misleading. It also makes it harder find what specs still need to
be completed if you return to an RSpec module after a break.
I propose that the 'i
