The time has come to turn NullDB maintenance over to someone new. See
this post for details:
http://avdi.org/devblog/2010/02/16/looking-for-a-new-nulldb-maintainer/
Please get in touch if you'd be interested in taking over maintenance
for the NullDB project. Thanks!
--
Avdi
Home: http://avdi.o
As also reported on my blog
[http://avdi.org/devblog/2010/04/06/nulldb-has-a-new-maintainer/],
Myron Marston is now the official maintainer of NullDB. I thought I'd
report it here as well since some of the list participants have
expressed interest in NullDB in the past.
Myron has brought much-need
cify a class) or (even
better) your own StandardError-derived exception class.
A straight-up exception will bypass all default "rescue" clauses and
in general indicates that something has gone badly wrong and the
program should end.
--
Avdi Grimm
http://avdi.org
__
g:
http://avdi.org/devblog/exceptional-ruby/
Cheers,
--
Avdi Grimm
http://avdi.org
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
ed file structures and then automatically clean them up
when the test is done.
--
Avdi Grimm
http://avdi.org
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
I posted an article on RSpec this morning, I thought it might be of
interest to this list:
http://avdi.org/devblog/2011/04/07/rspec-is-for-the-literate/
--
Avdi Grimm
http://avdi.org
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http
Feature and scenario are aliases defined by capybara.
On Jul 16, 2012 5:50 AM, "Matt Wynne" wrote:
>
> On 16 Jul 2012, at 02:28, Mike Glaz wrote:
>
> Describe, context, feature, scenario: what is the difference between the
> four and when do I use each one?
>
>
> Feature and Scenario are Cucumber
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I just wondered if anyone here has used Screw.Unit[2], and if so, how
> does it compare to RSpec? It seems to offer many of the features of RSpec
> (with the notable exception of shared behaviours).
I just want to thank
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:16 AM, Bastien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Do anyone know if there's a way to spec protected methods ?
> Thanks in advance
FWIW, I blogged my answer to this question recently:
http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/
--
Avdi
Home: htt
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Avdi Grimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, I blogged my answer to this question recently:
> http://avdi.org/devblog/2008/10/21/testing-private-methods/
...and to be a little more concrete, at first glance the way I'd apply
that advice to your c
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but I'd really like to know what the
> revered ruby-hackers who read this list think.
>
> See
> http://ozmm.org/posts/class__self_is_harmful.html
For the case of defining class methods I compl
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Such methods have access to the eigenclass's instance variables, and so
> class << self works very nice when working with singletons (like Log or
> Config).
I've never had trouble accessing class-level instance
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> If you don't use class << self, you have to work on class variables and
> you can't use the attr_* shorthands to access the singleton's variables.
It's true you need to use class << self to use attr_* macros, bu
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And class variables are problematic in Rails in development mode because
>> of class reloading.
>
> And more generally dangerous for threading reasons, right?
All of the above. My rule of thumb is: don't use them unless I
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Brian has argued eloquently that class << self leaves more readable
> and maintainable code behind.
I don't think so. Nothing that has been said here has changed my
feeling that using class << self for class methods
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Avdi Grimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it's a practice worth promulgating.
...not to mention that most noob Ruby programmers learned to use def
self.foo (or def ClassName.foo, if they are reading the 1st edition
pickaxe online)
I contributed an article on BDD and RSpec to the Ruby Advent Calendar
2008, going over some of the rules I've collected for interpreting
what your specs say about your design. It can be found here:
http://advent2008.hackruby.com/past/2008/12/10/listening_to_your_specs/
--
Avdi
Home: http://avdi
So I was running my specs with -w the other day, and noticed a lot of
warnings being produced. Some of these appear to be coming from RSpec
internals, which is an issue in its own right but not the subject of
this email. What I'm asking about right now is this. Given an
example of the form:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Lenny Marks wrote:
> Thanks to you and Dave for your responses. I've commented on the original
> article with back links to this thread. Hope I didn't overstep by saying "I
> think there is some consensus that 'Contexts named after methods' is not a
> smell and ca
I gather from some recent posts that some people are actually using
NullDB in their projects. As the creator of NullDB, I'm pleased and a
little surprised to hear this.
Since NullDB is has received exactly zero attention from me since
it's initial release, I'm curious how it's working out for pe
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ignore me, I was just being stupid :) I don't really put commas at the end
> of my filenames. I'm sure I've seen something that does though, but I can't
> remember what.
RCS?
--
Avdi
Home: http://avdi.org
Developer Bl
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So - how bad do you think this would suck to remove that feature? Are you
> using it yourself?
Personally, I *love* this feature, and would not like to see it go.
One of my heuristics for a good spec is that it either a)
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:25 PM, yitzhakbg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This might be a loaded question on this forum, but here goes:
> Just had a discussion with a prospective employer, a Ruby On Rails shop. His
> reaction to BDD development on every project was skeptical, saying something
> like
I'll just second the other suggestions of a) getting some high-level
integration tests over the app; b) doing the detailed specs
just-in-time when you need to make a change; and c) reading Michael
Feathers' book. I've been in the same position, and the above three
points helped a lot.
--
Avdi
H
24 matches
Mail list logo
