Ok sorry bout that, perils of using gmail I guess...
2008/12/8 Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In the future, if you're going to +1 his advice could you please include
> it in your email? I have to go searching for it now.
>
> Pat
>
___
rspec-users m
Pat Maddox wrote:
> In the future, if you're going to +1 his advice could you please include
> it in your email? I have to go searching for it now.
>
> Pat
>
> "Andrew Premdas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/172701. Third from the top.
Regards,
--
Posted via http:
In the future, if you're going to +1 his advice could you please include
it in your email? I have to go searching for it now.
Pat
"Andrew Premdas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +1 to Davids advice
>
> But first I would analyse the feature I've written. Some of the things I'd
> think about incl
Your very welcome :)
2008/12/7 Dan North <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hooray! I've been looking for a reference for that quote for years! Thanks
> Andrew.
>
>
> 2008/12/7 Andrew Premdas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make
>> it so simple that
Hooray! I've been looking for a reference for that quote for years! Thanks
Andrew.
2008/12/7 Andrew Premdas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make
> it so simple that there are no obvious deficiencies, and the other way is to
> make it so
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it
so simple that there are no obvious deficiencies, and the other way is to
make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first
method is far more difficult"
C. A. R. Hoare, Professor of Computing, Oxfo
Andrew Premdas wrote:
>
> So my initial scenario might be
>
> When I create a new improvement
> I should see a confirmation
>
> and my second scenario might be
>
> Given there are some improvements
> I should be able to view improvements
>
> Finally have a think about whether this feature is a
+1 to Davids advice
But first I would analyse the feature I've written. Some of the things I'd
think about include
1) The use of the word task - its not very precise
2) The assumptions made in my story and whether I'm ready to make these yet
a) That a task will have a name
b) That only Eng
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:08 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Stephen Veit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am trying to develop code from the feature on down.
>>
>> So I created a brand new rails app. It has no models yet. I wrote a feature:
>>
>> Feat
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Stephen Veit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am trying to develop code from the feature on down.
>
> So I created a brand new rails app. It has no models yet. I wrote a feature:
>
> Feature: Add tasks
> In order to track website improvements
> a user
> wants to
I think is better create the step ( it will no work ) and then run
script/generate rspec_scaffold Task name:string description:text
cas_link:string
or if you not using rspec:
script/generate scaffold Task name:string description:text cas_link:string
Atenciosamente,
Daniel Lopes Area Criaçõe
I am trying to develop code from the feature on down.
So I created a brand new rails app. It has no models yet. I wrote a feature:
Feature: Add tasks
In order to track website improvements
a user
wants to add tasks
Scenario: User adds task
Given task "Display Group Rules" does not ex
12 matches
Mail list logo
