On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:02 PM, wrote:
> Passing the it() and describe() args through to the reporting layer sounds
> like a great idea. I've thought more about the reporting-levels approach.
> The numeric as I postulated earlier is probably not the most useful thing.
>
> As a product manager,
Passing the it() and describe() args through to the reporting layer sounds like
a great idea. I've thought more about the reporting-levels approach. The
numeric as I postulated earlier is probably not the most useful thing.
As a product manager, I want to be able to flexibly present the appr
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:36 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Rick DeNatale
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, David Chelimsky
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > I agree this discussion should move to a ticket. But it seems I am to
> >> > lazy
> >> > to do it myself
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, David Chelimsky
> wrote:
>>
>> > I agree this discussion should move to a ticket. But it seems I am to
>> > lazy
>> > to do it myself ;)
>>
>> http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645-rspec/tickets/669
>
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> > I agree this discussion should move to a ticket. But it seems I am to
> lazy
> > to do it myself ;)
>
> http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645-rspec/tickets/669
>
>
Nice to see you step back from the list of suggestions and nicely
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>
> On 29 Jan 2009, at 22:20, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM, wrote:
Hi all,
I've found myself writing a thing I think is
On 29 Jan 2009, at 22:20, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM, wrote:
Hi all,
I've found myself writing a thing I think is less than optimal,
looking
for suggestions. The context is, I'm testing a result, and as
a part
of
t
tead of the real example. We could add the
options to that wrapper though, and then you'd be able to write a
custom formatter that would do anything you like based on the
configuration of those options.
WDYT about that?
>
> Randy
>
>
> ____
> From
I do like try_to do...end.or_report - much better for the case where I'm not
trying to generate documentation.
I'm not sure it works so well for the case where I want to generate an extra
element of documentation, though this might be just an implementation detail.
.or_report
.or_document
.or_
lock, since the outer if() would
handle both those things.
Randy
From: aslak hellesoy
To: rspec-users
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:27:02 PM
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] simple == with prettier error messages + good
documentation
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM, aslak hellesoy
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM, David Chelimsky
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Nick Hoffman wrote:
>>> On 29/01/2009, at 2:18 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM, aslak hellesoy
wrote
On 29/01/2009, at 4:27 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM, David Chelimsky > wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Nick Hoffman
wrote:
I like "on_failure", as it's consistent with RSpec's output. Eg:
31 examples, 0 failures
What could be done to make the construct mo
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Nick Hoffman wrote:
>> On 29/01/2009, at 2:18 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM, aslak hellesoy
>>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:25 PM, David Chelimsky
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Nick Hoffman wrote:
> On 29/01/2009, at 2:18 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM, aslak hellesoy
>> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:25 PM, David Chelimsky
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM, wrote:
>> >>
>>
On 29/01/2009, at 2:18 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM, aslak hellesoy > wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:25 PM, David Chelimsky
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM, wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've found myself writing a thing I think is less than optimal,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:18 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM, aslak hellesoy
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:25 PM, David Chelimsky
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> I've found myself writi
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM, aslak hellesoy wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:25 PM, David Chelimsky
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM, wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I've found myself writing a thing I think is less than optimal, looking
> >> for suggestions. The c
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:25 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM, wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've found myself writing a thing I think is less than optimal, looking
>> for suggestions. The context is, I'm testing a result, and as a part of
>> that test, I might veri
On 29/01/2009, at 1:00 PM, r_j_h_box...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've found myself writing a thing I think is less than optimal,
looking for suggestions. The context is, I'm testing a result, and
as a part of that test, I might verify two or three things, which
are individually relevant b
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM, wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've found myself writing a thing I think is less than optimal, looking for
> suggestions. The context is, I'm testing a result, and as a part of that
> test, I might verify two or three things, which are individually relevant
> but not real
20 matches
Mail list logo
