David,
I have an error when trying to run autospec.
It works when I run 'rake spec'
I don know why it is still using the rspec-1.1.12 gem.
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/dchelimsky-rspec-1.1.99.7/lib/spec/autorun.rb:3:
undefined method `autorun' for Spec::Runner:Module (NoMethodError)
from /usr
Hey there,
I've tried using Nick Sieger's "plugin" to have autotest run my tests
for gems and other non-rails stuff. However, it doesn't seem to match
any tests for any files. Not being sure what was wrong, I traced the
execution of RspecAutotest.run() and saw that tests_for_file() never
On 19 Feb 2009, at 21:53, Zach Dennis wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Matt Wynne
wrote:
On 19 Feb 2009, at 20:54, Martin wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to test my views using rspec. I want to test my edit- and
new-view also for the case an error occurs (something like "title
can't be
b
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>
> On 19 Feb 2009, at 21:53, Zach Dennis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19 Feb 2009, at 20:54, Martin wrote:
>>>
Hi,
I'm trying to test my views using rspec. I want to test my edit- and
>
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Christian Hoeppner
wrote:
> Hey there,
>
> I've tried using Nick Sieger's "plugin" to have autotest run my tests for
> gems and other non-rails stuff. However, it doesn't seem to match any tests
> for any files. Not being sure what was wrong, I traced the execution
When I initially began working with cucumber and developing features and
steps from existing code I went through a process (prompted by the
members of this group) of developing increasingly abstract
(declarative?) wording for the feature scenario steps. Now, I am
finally at the stage where I am us
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>
> On 19 Feb 2009, at 21:53, Zach Dennis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19 Feb 2009, at 20:54, Martin wrote:
>>>
Hi,
I'm trying to test my views using rspec. I want to test my edit- and
>
Hello all,
Is there a way to have autospec and/or RSpactor just run the specs for
the files that have changed and not run the entire spec suite
afterwards? If you start autospec with -f it will wait for a change but
it will then run the entire suite after the individual one passes. The
proje
I don't know about RSpactor, but autospec will keep track of failing
specs and re-run them along with changed specs and specs for changed
files. It won't run the entire suite until everything has passed.
You could temporarily add a dummy example somewhere in your suite
which always fails. That wa
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>>
>> On 19 Feb 2009, at 21:53, Zach Dennis wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Matt Wynne wrote:
On 19 Feb 2009, at 20:54, Martin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm t
Hi all
Marginally on-topic... as part of my compulsion to create LinkedIn
groups, I made a group[1] for Celerity[2] today. Thought I would
announce here, as there are quite possibly more Celerity users here
than on the official Celerity mailing list!
And if you haven't tried Celerity wit
Given this:
If I want webrat to select on the ccs id (#submit_commit_client) rather
than the value (Create) how do I pass this to click_button?
I have tried this:
click_button("#submit_commit_client")
Which gives this error:
Could not find button "#submit_commit_client" (Webrat::
I would suggest a different approach to organizing the features. In
particular I would recommend the features be used to test
implementation invariant aspects of the system. Our features are
whole stack sequences that involve views, controllers, and models in
almost every case. We test t
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:13 PM, James Byrne wrote:
> Given this:
>
>
>
>
>value="Create" />
>
>
>
>
> If I want webrat to select on the ccs id (#submit_commit_client) rather
> than the value (Create) how do I pass this to click_button?
>
> I have tried this:
>
> click_button("#submit_co
Michael Latta wrote:
> I would suggest a different approach to organizing the features.
...
> Requirements changes have a different workflow than implementation
> bugs. I would recommend you track that difference in your project
> management system. Keep an eye on how much changes after
> implem
Zach Dennis wrote:
>
> Can you use the following or do you need to use an id for other reason?
>
>click_button "Create"
>
That is how I am doing the check now. I am simply investigating whether
another means is available to me. At the back of my mind is the idea
that it is the presence
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Peter Jaros wrote:
>
> Other than that, I can't think of a way to do it short of writing your
> own autospec style and overriding the #run algorithm.
Which is almost exactly what I was about to suggest. >8-> Only you
don't have to override #run, you can just fak
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM, James Byrne wrote:
> Zach Dennis wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you use the following or do you need to use an id for other reason?
>>
>>click_button "Create"
>>
>
> That is how I am doing the check now. I am simply investigating whether
> another means is available to me
Zach Dennis wrote:
>
> You should be able to click the button by id, by not using a CSS
> selector. ie:
>
>click_button "submit_commit_client"
>
You are right. That works. Thank you.
Regards,
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
rspec
- Original Message
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:43:35 -0500
> From: Zach Dennis
> The Cucumber rake task doesn't support profiles very well. There is a
> ticket for this:
>
> http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211/tickets/187-rake-task-support-cucumberyml-profiles
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:46 PM, James Byrne wrote:
>
> As a practical matter it appears to me that the logical flow is
> Authentication/Authorization, administrative functions relating to
> record maintenance, algorithmic user applications, report generation,
> utilities, and finally loose ends.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
>
> You can't really show off authorization. It's visible, but it doesn't
> excite people. You need to have some basic stuff in for it before you
> can open it up to the public, but it's not necessarily Square One, and
> treating it like it is
Stephen Eley wrote:
>
> Well... In my opinion, yes and no. I personally have my doubts about
> the 'waterfall' chain of serial projects you're talking about here.
> "We will do authorization. Then we will do admin screens. Then we
> will..."
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly, or perhaps I
Stephen Eley wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Peter Jaros wrote:
Other than that, I can't think of a way to do it short of writing your
own autospec style and overriding the #run algorithm.
Which is almost exactly what I was about to suggest. >8-> Only you
don't have to overr
24 matches
Mail list logo
