First off, I'm not trying to spec attachment_fu, I know it's been tested.
But, I added some code to that model that I do need to test. Basically,
I need to somehow fulfill the "uploaded_data" property so I can actually
run my tests(otherwise they fail because of validations). The
"uploaded_dat
il ? thumbnail_class :
self).attachment_options[:path_prefix].to_s
File.join(RAILS_ROOT, 'public/external', file_system_path,
thumbnail_name_for(thumbnail) + '.jpg')
end
def public_image
self.public_filename
end
end
aslak hellesoy wrote:
On 8/22/07, Matt Lins <
No, as mentioned in my first post, the property that needs to be
fulfilled is uploaded_data. I posted the accessor in my first post as well.
aslak hellesoy wrote:
On 8/22/07, Matt Lins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, attachment_fu is a plugin for handling binary data. It h
`render'
./spec/controllers/products_controller_spec.rb:6:
script/spec:4:
The line of code responsible is:
get "index"
This is actually the first controller spec I've written, so I'm really lost.
Any Ideas?
Thanks,
Matt Lins
___
ct_render_mock_proxy'
/Users/mattlins/Projects/RailsProjects/SWNetworkServices/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/controller.rb:67:in
`render'
./spec/controllers/products_controller_spec.rb:6:
script/spec:4:
David Chelimsky wrote:
On 10/23/07, Matt Lins <[
Yes.
George Anderson wrote:
Have you also piston'd:
svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/tags/CURRENT/rspec_on_rails?
On 10/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/23/07, Matt Lins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I upgraded the Rspec gem to the latest
Hi all,
Initially I thought this was a bug in the built-in mocking framework(and it
still may be), but I better hash it out on the mailing list before I
file/reopen the ticket:
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/478-mocks-on-constants#ticket-478-6
I thought my example illustrat
first spec not fail because of MyModel.find ?
Also, FlexMock does not seem to behave this way(not that they need to
behave the same), but I would question whether this behavior is
intentional?
-Matt
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 24,
ed at the
rSpec internals to verify, other than the parameter name:
stubs_and_options+ lets you assign options and stub values
at the same time. The only option available is :null_object.
Anything else is treated as a stub value.
So, is this problem?
-Matt
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Matt Li
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 25, 2008, at 12:21 AM, Matt Lins wrote:
>
>> Scott,
>>
>> Thanks, your solution does work, although I'm not sure I like it. I
>> like to stub out behavior in my befor
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 25, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Matt Lins wrote:
>
>> I suppose the way I'm defining the stubs, differs from what Dave is
>> doing in his example.
>>
>> I assumed that:
>&
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 25, 2008, at 1:15 AM, Matt Lins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Scott Taylor
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 25, 2008, at 12:32
8:15 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:57 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Matt Lins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Scott Taylor
>>>
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:40 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:15 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:57 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> On Fri
Fair enough. Thanks.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:53 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Matt Lins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On
hanks again everyone.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Matt Lins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, gist is great!
>>
>> Thank you very much for taking the time to look at this. I like your
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
