Hi List,
We didn't resolve this in the end, we rolled back to Cucumber 0.3.0; has
anyone else seen anything similar?
- Lee
2009/4/30 Julian Leviston
> I have NO idea if this is relevant, but the way you extend worlds has
> changed, I'm fairly sure.
> Julian.
>
>
> On 30/04/2009, at 10:15 PM, Le
> Hi List,
> We didn't resolve this in the end, we rolled back to Cucumber 0.3.0; has
> anyone else seen anything similar?
>
Nobody else has reported anything similar on this mailing list.
Can you run with --backtrace on so we can see where the error is coming
from?
Can you also gist your features
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Zach Dennis wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:57 PM, BJ Clark wrote:
>> Fernando,
>>
>> They are easier to spec with Pat Maddox's "no peeping toms" plugin.
>> http://github.com/pat-maddox/no-peeping-toms/tree/master
>
> I use Pat's no-peeping-toms plugin as well.
Don't mock the Geolp library directly. Wrap it with an API that fits
your domain better. Then write a very simple object that implements
the same API but doesn't hit the network. You can use a switch
somewhere in env.rb to use your fake implementation or the Geolp one.
Pat
On Sunday, May 3, 2009,
My absolute favorite solution for this:
http://github.com/chrisk/fakeweb/tree/master
I use that in an application I'm building that uses Twitter's OAuth,
and otherwise heavily uses the Twitter API. It allows me to easily
fake out all of Twitter's responses so I can do
unit/integration/acceptance t
Hi again. I haven't heard any responses on this thread (is this thing
on? ;) .
Is there any known pattern for verifying a route that *doesn't* exist,
as of Rspec 1.2.6?
Thanks,
Randy
Randy Harmon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When upgrading to rspec/rspec-rails 1.2.6 gem (from 1.1.12), I'm having
> a new
Hi again. I haven't heard any responses on this thread (is this thing
on? ;).
Is there any known pattern for verifying a route that *doesn't* exist,
as of Rspec 1.2.6?
Thanks,
Randy
Randy Harmon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When upgrading to rspec/rspec-rails 1.2.6 gem (from 1.1.12), I'm having
> a new pr
Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere, Google was not very helpful
to me on this one. If I'm running a model spec and am one of those
benighted souls who wants to hit the DB while doing so, is there a way
for me to tell RSpec to skip transactions? In Test::Unit I can say
"uses_transaction :test
Actually, I do have my own object wrapping GeoIp, and I stubbed the
method on that object that returns a country code for me.
I can see maybe creating another object to be used in the test
environment, but I can't see what advantages that offers over using
the rspec mocking framework.
On Ma