Hey guys. I'm having some trouble with a route spec. In routes.rb , I
have:
map.connect 'foods/search/:name', :controller => :foods, :action =>
:search
foods_controller_spec.rb has: http://codepad.org/dg3FERKw
Unfortunately, that fails: http://codepad.org/lck4r1S0
After reading the rspec-rail
Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> Nick Hoffman wrote:
>> Hey guys. I'm having some trouble with a route spec. In routes.rb , I
>> have:
>> map.connect 'foods/search/:name', :controller => :foods, :action =>
>> :search
>>
>> foods_controller_spe
David Chelimsky wrote:
> I'd recommend using the route_to matcher that was added in 1.2.9
> instead.
>
> http://codepad.org/fLcxyA9N
> http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec-rails/1.2.9/classes/Spec/Rails/Matchers.html#M29
>
> It's more reliable, and aligns better with the rspec matchers API.
>
>
Randy Harmon wrote:
> On 1/11/10 9:22 PM, Nick Hoffman wrote:
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>>
>> Thanks for that, David. I updated my spec (http://codepad.org/F828X7Fg).
>> For some reason though, it's still failing: http://codepad.org/s65Ckubc
>&
By the way, does this spec:
{:get => '/path'}.should route_to(...)
make this spec redundant?:
params_from(:get, '/path').should == {...}
They read the same, but it feels like they each check one end of the
route's translation.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Nick Hoffman
> wrote:
>
>> By the way, does this spec:
>>{:get => '/path'}.should route_to(...)
>> make this spec redundant?:
>>params_from(:get, '/path').should
David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Nick Hoffman
> wrote:
>
>> > Yes - route_to checks both sides of the translation.
>>
>> Great, thanks for that, David!
>
>
> Thank Randy Harmon for this one. It was he who recognized and solve
Hey guys. I have two different paths that lead to the same controller
and action:
map.connect 'foods/search/:name', :controller => 'foods', :action =>
'search'
map.food':name', :controller => 'foods', :action =>
'search'
Unfortunately, the spec for the second route fails be
One of my controller actions sends a redirect if the request URI begins
with /foods/search
34 def search
35return redirect_to "/#{params[:name]}" if
request.request_uri.match /^\/foods\/search/
Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to spec this.
>From everything that I've read while res
API Dock says that "share_examples_for" is deprecated. If that's
correct, what should we be using instead?
http://apidock.com/rspec/Spec/Extensions/Main/share_examples_for
Thanks,
Nick
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
rspec-users mailing l
Pat Maddox wrote:
> describe "something something", :shared => true do
> ...
> end
>
> describe "chunky bacon" do
> it_should_behave_like "something something"
> end
Thanks, mate.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
rspec-users mailing li
Pat Maddox wrote:
> describe "something something", :shared => true do
> ...
> end
>
> describe "chunky bacon" do
> it_should_behave_like "something something"
> end
BTW, is rspec.info supposed to be up-to-date? It still recommends using
"shared_examples_for".
http://rspec.info/documentatio
David Chelimsky wrote:
> So this presents an interesting problem :)
>
> My intent some time back was to deprecate :shared => true, not
> share_examples_for (which is aliased with shared_examples_for). Based
> on that, the rspec.info site is correct and Pat is incorrect. However,
> Pat didn't know
emdub wrote:
> I think what is easiest/cleanest in the code should prevail :) I
> personally like "shared_examples_for", but can easily adapt to
> whatever decision is made.
>
> On a semi-related note. Where do I require my shared specs so
> it_should_behave_like can find my shared example groups?
RSpec's changelog says that in version 1.2.5:
"also alias_method :stub, :stub!, so you can stub with less bang"
which I've been taking advantage of a lot.
However, I just ran into a situation where using #stub caused an error
to occur, and changing to #stub! caused the error the disappear.
Any
Pat Maddox wrote:
> I've never heard of CurbFu, but according to
> http://github.com/gdi/curb-fu/blob/master/lib/curb-fu.rb#L43 it defines
> a stub method already. So you're hitting that one, which expects two
> arguments. stub! goes to RSpec's mocking framework.
>
> Pat
Good catch! Thanks,
Patrick Collins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have this in my controller action:
>
> from_address = Setting.find_by_name("shipping_from_address").address
>
> and my spec fails:
>
> NoMethodError in 'Admin::ShippingLabelsController should render a pdf
> file'
> undefined method `address' for nil:NilClass
patrick99e99 wrote:
>> Patrick, please create a new thread for this, since it doesn't have
>> anything to do with the current topic.
>
> Wow that is weird.. I replied to the previous thread in my email
> client but removed the subject-- as I assumed that was what kept
> things associated with thr
Hey Patrick.
> I have this in my controller action:
>
> from_address = Setting.find_by_name("shipping_from_address").address
>
> and my spec fails:
>
> NoMethodError in 'Admin::ShippingLabelsController should render a pdf
> file'
> undefined method `address' for nil:NilClass
>
> yet in the con
Hey guys. I'm writing a Rails gem that's used by controllers. The gem
creates a singleton resource at run-time, along the lines of:
controller_name = ...dynamically generated...
ActionController::Routing::Routes.draw do |map|
map.resource controller_name, :only => :show
end
I'm trying to f
Hey guys. My ApplicationController rescues
Mongoid::Errors::DocumentNotFound errors like this:
class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base
rescue_from Mongoid::Errors::DocumentNotFound,
:with => :resource_not_found
protected
def resource_not_found(error)
flash[:alert] = t(
On 2008-09-28, at 16:33, Nick Hoffman wrote:
Hi guys. I'm curious to know why this method of stubbing a render
fails:
ActionController::Base.stub!(:render_to_string).and_return 'something'
And why this is [one of] the correct methods:
controller.stub_render :partial => '
Hi guys. I'm curious to know why this method of stubbing a render fails:
ActionController::Base.stub!(:render_to_string).and_return 'something'
And why this is [one of] the correct methods:
controller.stub_render :partial => '/some/partial'
Cheers,
Nick
__
I'm writing specs for an XHR, and am having troubles getting my specs
to see that a is being hidden.
=== map_filter.rjs
19 else
20 puts "map_filter.rjs> else!"
21 # Display the filter errors.
22 page['map-filter-errors'].hide
23 page['map-filter-errors'].replace_html @map_filter_err
On 2008-09-28, at 17:20, Nick Hoffman wrote:
431 it 'should hide the map filter errors ' do
432 do_xhr @xhr_params
433 response.should have_rjs
434 # response.should have_rjs(:hide, 'map-filter-errors')
435 end
I just discovered
On 2008-09-29, at 07:58, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Nick Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 2008-09-28, at 17:20, Nick Hoffman wrote:
431 it 'should hide the map filter errors ' do
432 do_xhr @xhr_params
433
On 2008-09-29, at 13:19, Steve Schafer wrote:
I think it's a parsing problem, rather than an idiom problem. I
think he
read it as if "offhand" were the object of "that is offhand," which
doesn't make much sense.
Hah, you're right, Steve =)
___
rspe
On 2008-09-29, at 19:33, Zach Dennis wrote:
Having chained_replace_html is a hack to separate the regular
expressions based on if you used Way #1 or Way #2.
Interesting. Thanks for that explanation.
I have stopped relying on using RJS selectors to test against
generated JavaScript. I have als
On 2008-10-07, at 00:25, Greg Hauptmann wrote:
'Recurring.add projections (perform credit card payment) should
calculate amount based on offset provided' FAILED
expected no Exception, got #exception>
==> Actually does show exception name, but doesn't give a back
trace? Is there a way to see t
On 2008-10-08, at 19:50, Wes Gamble wrote:
I just did a test where I ran one spec and deep deep within the code
under test, I printed out the DB connection of the AR class of a given
object, like so:
<..snip..>
which shows that I am hitting my development database. Why would I
see
this outp
On 2008-10-08, at 07:01, Jeroen van Dijk wrote:
Hi all,
I'm new to this list and new to RSpec so I have been trying out
RSpec the last couple of days and I find it very a natural way of
testing. So first of all thanks for providing this framework.
Now, I have written some tests for my cont
Hi guys. One of my specs is very weak, and I'd really like to improve
it.
Lines 111-116 are what I'm having trouble speccing, and depend on
lines 105-109.
105 # Grab all of the properties, filtering using the given
conditions.
106 @properties = Property.find :all, :conditions =
On 2008-10-11, at 17:31, Mark Wilden wrote:
If you mocked the Property.find call, you'd have @properties.
Hah, good point. Apologies for the obvious question.
Cheers,
Nick
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/ma
On 2008-10-12, at 22:33, O. Frabjous-Dey wrote:
Hi everyone, RSpec newbie here. I'm looking forward to interacting
with the community as I learn more about TDD, RSpec, Rails, and...
TDD through RSpec in Rails.
Having watched the Peepcode screencasts and read a lot of
documentation, I'm tr
On 2008-10-12, at 23:49, O. Frabjous-Dey wrote:
Hi Nick,
The :new action comes straight from script/generate rspec_scaffold:
def new
@group = Group.new
respond_to do |format|
format.html
end
end
I took out the XML rendering, but left in the respond_to block just
in cas
On 2008-10-13, at 17:14, O. Frabjous-Dey wrote:
I thought some more about the issue and I think I'm approaching the
problem the wrong way to begin with. As I understand it, part of
the philosophy of RSpec is that using mocks and stubs when testing
controllers and views instead of touching t
Hi guys. One of my methods uses a constant in another method, like this:
class A
def something
"foo: #{B::BAR}"
end
end
When writing the spec for A#something , how would you mock or stub
#{B::BAR}, and how would you set an expectation that B::BAR is used?
Thanks,
Nick
___
On 2008-10-15, at 16:39, Craig Demyanovich wrote:
Probably, I would just check the outcome of the method instead of
checking interaction with a constant.
Craig
So you guys wouldn't worry about the spec for class A being coupled to
this constant in class B?
-Nick
__
On 2008-10-15, at 21:59, Craig Demyanovich wrote:
Since class A is coupled to class B, the specs for A are also
coupled to class B through class A. Thus, I wouldn't worry about the
coupling. Why does a method of class A directly access a constant of
class B? Does the constant belong in class
On 2008-10-16, at 15:12, Craig Demyanovich wrote:
Cool. Having seen something a little more concrete, I like your
design decisions. In this case, I'd go with Scott's recommendation
of hiding the constant behind a method.
Regards,
Craig
Thanks for taking a look, Craig, and giving me your op
On 2008-10-17, at 14:55, Mark Thomson wrote:
..snip..
It seems as if "should_receive" is queuing up the messages that come
into the file object and when it tests an expectation it just looks
at the next one in line. If it doesn't match then the expectation
will fail.
Hi Mark. From my unde
On 2008-10-17, at 14:46, Rasmus Rasmussen wrote:
I'm sorry if this is posted in wrong forum. I am new to all of this
with
rails and rspec.
Something got messed up when I changed a table's name from 'works' to
'work_periods'. Now the fixture:load thing does not work. Obviously
the
old table
On 2008-10-17, at 17:16, David Chelimsky wrote:
Cool. Don't forget the seldom used #head, though I don't know what to
call it: when_heading_to?
I looked through the docs at http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec/1.1.8/
for #head , but the closest thing I found was #header , which is
undocumented.
On 2008-10-18, at 09:16, Pat Maddox wrote:
Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You'd be able to write a spec like the following:
it "should link with the correct name" do
helper.should_receive(:link_to).with("foo", {:controller => "foo",
:action => "foo"})
helper.my_method("foo")
end
On 2008-10-20, at 09:19, Zach Dennis wrote:
Look up "integrate_views" on the rspec-rails docs:
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec-rails/1.1.8/
Also there is a section called "Integration Model". Read that. If you
have any further questions don't hesitate to ask. HTH,
Hi Zach. I searched for "
On 2008-10-20, at 11:24, David Chelimsky wrote:
It's Integration Mode, not Model :)
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec-rails/1.1.8/classes/Spec/Rails/Example/ControllerExampleGroup.html
Ah! Thanks for the clarification, David.
No worries about the typo, Zach. My fingers often have a mind of the
On 2008-10-28, at 09:09, Cameron Booth wrote:
describe User do
it_should_validate_presence_of :name
end
I can get it working if I pass in User as an argument:
describe User do
it_should_validate_presence_of User, :name
end
Hi Cameron. I haven't played with RSpec's internals at all, but
On 2008-10-28, at 10:52, Rémi Gagnon wrote:
Let's see, I want to spec the :conditions args to make sure the right
args is passed to the query.
Product.find(:all,
:conditions => ["inte_no = ? and vaat_id_type_statut_pcpa = ?",
inte_no, 7],
:limit => 2,
:order => "trns_dt_appl_prod
On 2008-10-30, at 10:56, Zach Dennis wrote:
Last night it seemed like the mailing list was playing catchup, as I
got a flood of emails from the past few days. Has anyone else seen
this?
Yup! When I checked my email this morning, I found 61 new messages
from the rspec-users ML.
___
On 2008-10-30, at 15:31, Pat Maddox wrote:
eh I dunno. I mean, I completely agree that hard-to-write tests often
expose bad code. But there isn't any gray area when it comes to
designing Rails controllers, in my opinion. I see an action that's
more
than five lines long and I know it's wrong
On 2008-10-31, at 17:52, Matt Darby wrote:
Same thing unfortunately. It also happens when I add --drb to spec/
spec.opts and run autotest/autospec as well.
G'day Matt. This probably won't be of much help, but I've never been
able to run my specs against spec_server. I always get this error:
When writing specs for a helper method, how do you set an expectation
for #javascript_include_tag ?
describe NeighbourhoodsHelper do
describe '#initialise_map' do
it 'should include the "foo" JS file' do
# expectation here
helper.foobar
end
end
end
I've tried replacing
On 2008-10-31, at 18:50, David Chelimsky wrote:
Assuming that you intend to have a helper method that calls out to
javascript_include_tag, then:
helper.should_receive :javascript_include_tag
Let us know if that works for you.
Hah, so easy. Why didn't I think of that? =P Thanks, mate!
_
On 2008-10-31, at 20:17, Pat Maddox wrote:
Nick Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I can make this 22-line action a
bit shorter? =)
http://refactormycode.com/codes/575-dry-up-a-controller-action
I should have known I'd get called out on this :)
I pushed around some stuff t
On 2008-11-04, at 10:32, Fernando Perez wrote:
You say these guys should have come over and posted to this mailing-
list
or submitted bugs. But when I read the posts here, most of the time,
when someone has a problem he gets pointed to the unfriendly
documentation pages or worse, the very thin d
I had a look around for how to stub Time.now , #from_now , etc, and
came across this, which was useful:
http://devblog.michaelgalero.com/2007/11/23/actioncontroller-rspec-stub-timenow/
Unfortunately, my situation is slightly different, and causes that
solution to not be applicable. This is wh
On 2008-11-05, at 14:42, David Chelimsky wrote:
The problem is there is no Singleton Class for 1, probably an
efficiency in Ruby since 1 is, itself, a Singleton.
All of these frameworks try to manipulate methods on the object's
singleton class. So no mocking/stubbing on Fixnums. Apparently.
Not
On 2008-11-05, at 14:55, Fernando Perez wrote:
And I get the following error message:
--
Mock 'Order_1' received unexpected message :amount= with (50)
--
Well I know that @cart.amount will be set to 50, but why is RSpec
complaining about that?
If I put @cart.should_receive(:amount).with(50), r
On 2008-11-05, at 15:02, Ben Mabey wrote:
Hey Nick,
It is generally a bad idea to stub/mock a method on the object you
are verifying the behaviour of. I would recommend a state-based
approach of testing this method as opposed to the interaction-based
one you are pursuing. The reason being
On 2008-11-05, at 15:10, Mark Wilden wrote:
What I can't figure out is this:
>> 1.day
=> 1 day
>> 1.day.class
=> Fixnum
Is 1.day an ActiveSupport::Duration or a Fixnum?
///ark
It's an ActiveSupport::Duration :
48 def days
49 ActiveSupport::Duration.new(self * 24.hours,
On 2008-11-05, at 15:23, Fernando Perez wrote:
This throws the error: expected 50, got 0 (using .eql?)
This is because you told @cart to return 0 when #amount is called on it:
@cart = mock_model(Order, :id => 1, :amount => 0, :tax => 0)
I think maybe you're confusing what the arguments to #m
On 2008-11-05, at 15:23, Fernando Perez wrote:
Hmmm, I don't have this problem as I am using ruby-forum.com to browse
threads, it is x100 times more readable with basic color highlighting.
I'll do my best to include quotes for people who use regular mail
clients.
So here is my controller code:
-
On 2008-11-06, at 09:36, Ramon Tayag wrote:
How do you test that your controller fetched the right records?
I have an action that returns a different set of records based on
whether or not the current_user is the "owner" of the profile being
viewed.
Code is here http://pastie.org/308685.
"cont
I know that it's possible to run a single spec example (IE: #it block)
with the -e option for script/spec . Is it possible to run an entire
context (IE: #describe block)?
Cheers,
Nick
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rub
On 2008-11-10, at 14:06, Mark Wilden wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Nick Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I know that it's possible to run a single spec example (IE: #it
block) with the -e option for script/spec . Is it possible to run an
entire context (IE: #des
I'm writing specs to check that certain user types are authorised to
access certain controller actions. In addition to writing specs for
authorised user types and for users who aren't logged-in, I feel that
I should write specs for all of the other user types. However, the
number of example
On 2008-11-10, at 17:12, Mark Wilden wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Nick Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 2008-11-10, at 14:06, Mark Wilden wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Nick Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I know that it's possible to run a si
Hey guys. I've told one of my controllers to not render a layout for a
certain action:
layout false, :only => :map_info_window
Now I'm trying to spec that, but this:
it 'should not render a layout' do
controller.expect_render :layout
do_get
end
fails with this:
Spec::Mocks::Moc
On 2008-11-11, at 05:46, Fernando Perez wrote:
Nick Hoffman wrote:
Hey guys. I've told one of my controllers to not render a layout
for a
certain action:
layout false, :only => :map_info_window
Now I'm trying to spec that, but this:
it 'should not r
On 2008-11-11, at 00:53, Pat Maddox wrote:
Nick Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm writing specs to check that certain user types are authorised to
access certain controller actions. In addition to writing specs for
authorised user types and for users who aren't logged-i
On 2008-11-11, at 17:24, Fernando Perez wrote:
I've really moved away from shared example groups and started writing
more targeted macros. So I might do something like this:
def for_roles *roles
roles.each do |role|
before(:each) { login_as role }
yield
end
end
describe OrdersController
I've written a module for my specs that contains a helper method, and
am mixing the module into my specs with #include . It seems that the
method must be called with an #it block. If it isn't, this error occurs:
... in `method_missing': undefined method
`it_should_behave_like_an_action_that
On 2008-11-11, at 19:31, Ben Mabey wrote:
Nick Hoffman wrote:
I've written a module for my specs that contains a helper method,
and am mixing the module into my specs with #include . It seems
that the method must be called with an #it block. If it isn't, this
error occurs
On 2008-11-11, at 19:39, Pat Maddox wrote:
Nick Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I've written a module for my specs that contains a helper method, and
am mixing the module into my specs with #include . It seems that the
method must be called with an #it block. If it isn't, t
On 2008-11-11, at 19:49, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can even do it for particular example group types if you want:
Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
config.extend AuthSpecHelpers, :type => :controller
end
Note that config
On 2008-11-11, at 19:31, Ben Mabey wrote:
Nick Hoffman wrote:
I've written a module for my specs that contains a helper method,
and am mixing the module into my specs with #include . It seems
that the method must be called with an #it block. If it isn't, this
error occurs
On 2008-11-12, at 16:38, Ben Mabey wrote:
Nick Hoffman wrote:
After digesting that post again, especially the contents of
#self.included , I noticed that one could alternatively do this:
module AssignMacro
def self.extended(receiver)
receiver.extend ExampleGroupMethods
receiver.send
On 2008-11-14, at 06:29, Mano ah wrote:
can i know how to test a picture upload which dosent interact with db
my code is
def scan
#---
if request.post?
image = Image.new
image.blob= params[:image][:blob]
image.save_picture
end
--
Hi Mano. It doesn't really m
Hi guys. Occasionally, I'll want to kill a long spec process that's
running. Usually I hit CTRL+c to kill a running process, but doing
that for a running spec just causes "^C" to be printed to the
terminal, and whichever spec example was running to fail.
I've also tried using /bin/kill to k
On 2008-11-16, at 15:21, Pat Maddox wrote:
I just hold ctl+c until it quits out.
Pat
Hahha, brute force it, eh?
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On 2008-11-16, at 17:46, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Nov 16, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Nick Hoffman wrote:
Hi guys. Occasionally, I'll want to kill a long spec process that's
running. Usually I hit CTRL+c to kill a running process, but doing
that for a running spec just causes "^C"
Before writing specs for a one-to-many relationship between two
models, I did some research and found that some people were creating
proxy mocks, and others were using Matthew Heidemann's
#stub_association! (which essentially does that for, but in a nice,
DRY way):
http://www.ruby-forum.
On 2008-11-18, at 01:53, Mano ah wrote:
Nick Hoffman wrote:
On 2008-11-14, at 06:29, Mano ah wrote:
image = Image.new
image.blob= params[:image][:blob]
image.save_picture
end
--
Hi Mano. It doesn't really matter whether or not your "picture" model
i
On 2008-11-18, at 07:33, Rahoul Baruah wrote:
On 18 Nov 2008, at 05:41, Nick Hoffman wrote:
Before writing specs for a one-to-many relationship between two
models, I did some research and found that some people were
creating proxy mocks, and others were using Matthew Heidemann&#
On 2008-11-18, at 15:49, Ben Mabey wrote:
Nick Hoffman wrote:
Before writing specs for a one-to-many relationship between two
models, I did some research and found that some people were
creating proxy mocks, and others were using Matthew Heidemann's
#stub_association! (which essent
On 2008-11-19, at 12:26, Chris Flipse wrote:
I've actually taken this old gem and enhanced it a bit
module Spec::Mocks::Methods
def stub_association!(association_name, methods_to_be_stubbed ={})
mock_assn = Spec::Mocks::Mock.new(association_name.to_s)
stub_association_with(association_
I'm trying to write specs for a helper method that I'm creating, but
my specs are failing to find the helper method
# app/helpers/properties_helper.rb
module PropertiesHelper
def format_utilities(utilities)
end
end
# spec/helpers/properties_helper_spec.rb
require File.expand_path(File.dirn
On 2008-11-21, at 09:20, Ramon Tayag wrote:
Hi everyone,
WIth restful_authentication you get a method "permission_denied" that
you just slap onto the controller when you don't want a user to gain
access to something. In this method Rails does a bunch of stuff then
basically tries to be smart an
On 2008-11-24, at 00:39, Zach Dennis wrote:
Try: helper.format_utilities
Thanks everyone! I should have searched the API rather than Google.
I'll do that next time.
Cheers,
Nick
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyf
On 2008-11-24, at 11:16, James Byrne wrote:
I have this:
When /obtain the party (.*)/ do |n|
n case
Hi James. Shouldn't that be "case n"?
-Nick
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On 2008-11-24, at 11:47, James Byrne wrote:
Missing slash at end of regex
/When /should determine the party (.*)/
Sig Thanks.
Hey, it happens to the best of us, mate. At least it's an easy fix!
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rub
On 2008-11-25, at 14:04, s.ross wrote:
In Rails, the primary key, by default 'id', is used all over the
place. However, Ruby now deprecates the use of constructs like:
@post = Post.find(:first)
@post_id = @post.id
..snip..
Thanks,
Steve
Hi Steve. Ruby deprecated Object#id in favour of Objec
On 2008-11-25, at 22:07, David Parker wrote:
Hello!
So I'm having some problems working out some probably really easy
associations in Rails. I've Googled around and read some things on
different Rails forums and blogs, but I just haven't seen many solid
examples.
Anyway, my question is
On 2008-12-04, at 13:34, Andrew Premdas wrote:
This is of topic but I have a feeling I might get some useful advice
here - hope you don't mind
I've created a rails project that I want to use as a basis for other
rails project. I was wondering if anyone had any tips on workflow
for doing th
Hi guys. I just wrote a small spec helper method to DRY up some of my
specs, and found that passing a URL helper (Eg: #photos_url) to a
method results in a NameError error. I extracted the problem into its
own short spec file to isolate it. Any thoughts on what's going on?:
http://gist.githu
On 2008-12-04, at 17:06, Zach Dennis wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Nick Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi guys. I just wrote a small spec helper method to DRY up some of
my specs,
and found that passing a URL helper (Eg: #photos_url) to a method
results in
a NameError er
On 2008-12-04, at 17:43, Nick Hoffman wrote:
The only solution that I can think of is to do this:
before :each do
@account_url = account_url
end
it_should_redirect_to 'the account page', @account_url
Actually, that suggestion above of mine doesn't work. It fails with:
On 2008-12-05, at 01:51, Andrew Premdas wrote:
Scott
Working on this, assuming I have a cloned project 'foo' from my base
project base and I'm working on foo. So I implement something new
and then think this should be in base any ideas how to manage this.
Was thinking maybe of having a bas
On 2008-12-05, at 10:06, Daniel Lopes wrote:
Thanks for help and sorry for insistance but I don't understand
aspects on rspec ( I think not understand how we use mocks and stubs):
Hi Daniel. If you're a bit unsure about when to use mocks vs stubs,
have a read of this article by Martin Fowler
On 2008-12-04, at 19:56, Pat Maddox wrote:
Nick Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 2008-12-04, at 17:43, Nick Hoffman wrote:
The only solution that I can think of is to do this:
before :each do
@account_url = account_url
end
it_should_redirect_to 'the account page
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
