Hi there,
I was look for a little advice really. I've been using RSpec for about 4
months now and I find it an absolute joy for model work and a really
nice tool it makes everything so much more readable and nicer to organise
However, I seem to dread spec-ing out controllers, they end up bein
On 18 Oct 2008, at 14:53, Pat Maddox wrote:
I quit once I found not_a_mock [1] which works nicely. My preference
Yay! Thanks for the pointer Pat.
Baz.
Rahoul Baruah
Web design and development: http://www.3hv.co.uk/
Nottingham Forest: http://www.eighteensixtyfive.co.uk/
Serious Rails Host
On 21 Oct 2008, at 10:45, Rob Lacey wrote:
I almost am tempted to simplify the controller by using only the
User model and moving most of the checks out of the controller
action entirely and putting all into User, although that would mean
that the user model, single_sign_on and music_servi
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 19 Oct 2008, at 21:18, Ashley Moran wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2008, at 9:32 am, Matt Wynne wrote:
>>
[1] http://notahat.com/not_a_mock
>>>
>>> Looks sweet - it will be in my first mock on Monday!
>
> Thinking about i
So if I want to have a spec suite which uses a combination of mocking
frameworks, is this possible?
Maybe if some of the files include ../not_a_mock_spec_helper and the
others include ../default_spec_helper and then both those files
require some common spec_helper file?
On 21 Oct 2008, at
On 21 Oct 2008, at 13:08, Rahoul Baruah wrote:
On 21 Oct 2008, at 10:45, Rob Lacey wrote:
I almost am tempted to simplify the controller by using only the
User model and moving most of the checks out of the controller
action entirely and putting all into User, although that would mean
tha
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if I want to have a spec suite which uses a combination of mocking
> frameworks, is this possible?
>
> Maybe if some of the files include ../not_a_mock_spec_helper and the others
> include ../default_spec_helper and then b
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:45 AM, Rob Lacey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> However, I seem to dread spec-ing out controllers, they end up being quite
> untidy, I think maybe I am approaching them in the wrong way as it probably
> shouldn't be as hard as I am making it.
For what it's worth, Rob, I'm
Hey all,
Just a heads up about a bug related to configuring the rspec gems in
your rails 2.1.1 projects:
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645-rspec/tickets/577
Apparently, if you config.gem both rspec and rspec-rails 1.1.9 w/
rspec first, you'll get an error:
# DON'T DO THIS:
config.g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21 Oct 2008, at 16:51, Matt Wynne wrote:
Doesn't this just end up shifting the ugly mocking code into the
Presenter specs though?
The stock answer to this question is to move this logic down into
the model layer, so that the interface the P
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Rahoul Baruah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * the presenter/service's role is to coordinate the models - so its specs
> are purely about mocking the associations and the calls inbetween them
> * the presenter/service isn't a model (not ActiveRecord::Base) - so it's
Matt Wynne wrote:
ScenarioTemplate: Non admins are rejected
Given I login as Joe without the '[privilege]' privilege
When I [request_method] /admin[path]
Then I am notified that access was denied
| privilege | request_method | path |
| Joe | GET | /admin |
| Joe | POST | /invoces/1 |
Thanks David,
Your method works well and rspec succeeds now.
Is the preferred way of using code with rspec to not rely on instance
variables set in a parent during execution but to rely on the method
only construct to be able to interact?
I see the way this works for the outline you provided.
13 matches
Mail list logo
