On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:59 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:30 AM, aslak hellesoy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> World do
>> world = Object.new
>> world.extend(Logging::Logger)
>> world
>> end
>
> World do
> returning Cucumber::Rails::World do |world
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:01 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a cool idea - can you put a feature request in lighthouse?
Done:
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211-cucumber/tickets/87-yield-existing-world-object-to-world-block
Peter
_
I've just noticed that my "skipped" steps are actually running, but
their errors are being swallowed. They can print to the screen,
however. Is that intentional? It's certainly not what I was
expecting. I assumed skipped steps were...skipped.
Peter
_
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:02 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps the thing to do is really skip them. If you think that is the
> way to go, please add a ticket.
Ticketed:
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211-cucumber/tickets/90-really-skip-skipped-steps
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Harry Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last week I installed Cucumber 0.1.8 for my Rails app and both
> 'cucumber features' and 'rake features' worked fine. Features and
> steps were evaluated.
>
> Today I upgraded Cucumber to 0.1.9 and tried to set up autotest.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Byrne wrote:
>
>> It is not immediately clear to me whether this behaviour is
>> intended or not. Can someone provide the answer?
>>
>
> After reading the wiki I think what you are seeing is the expected
> behaviour.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Andrew Premdas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting ... so this establishes a convention to use in features
> that all Givens are written in the past tense and all whens in the
> present tense.
Actually, I put both in the present tense, but Givens describe stat
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, aslak hellesoy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How will people know that a method is part of an API? Can we simply say that
> if it has RDoc it's part of the API and stable, and if it doesn't it's not?
> (We can still RDoc non-API code, just put :nodoc: on it so it d
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Pau Cor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really understand what you are getting at. However, as I less
> experienced developer (my degree is actually in business) I have found
> that having more unit tests (for models and controllers) helps ensure
> that I write bett
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Pau Cor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Pau Cor wrote:
>> > /\\s*\Token\:\<\/b\>\s*[a-f0-9]{40}\s*\<\/p\>/m
>>
>> On second thought, you might want to make that regex more generic. When
>> y
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:04 PM, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick
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.
Actually, instance variables in a "def self.*" method still ref
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:12 PM, James Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Byrne wrote:
>
>>
>> I understood that the purpose of autotest was that it ONLY ran a test
>> for the changed file. However, with this setup, if I touch any file
>> anywhere in the project then the full suite of featur
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And class variables are problematic in Rails in development mode because of
> class reloading.
Yes. They are.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peeja/3056849146/
Peter
___
rspec-us
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about a more sophisticated mechanism for this, using code
> coverage. If autotest / rspactor was able to record and remember the LOC
> covered by each scenario / example, it would be possible to do more foc
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Andrew Premdas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh but cucumber features so want to be idented on the I
>
> Scenario: Anonymous user can not duplicate a un-activated account
>Given I am an anonymous user
> And a registered user Fred exists
> When I signup a
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WDYT? Possible?
Possibly. :)
That does sound like it might be possible. On the other hand, in
practice, I've found that the current implementation works the way I'd
want it to at least 95% of the time. Personally, I'm not
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:47 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll have to give autospec another shot then I guess. I have given up on it
> as it takes over 7 minutes to 'boot up' with our test suite, and I find it
> misses too many things it should have run, such that I have to hit CTRL
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Kero van Gelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ AUTOFEATURE=true autospec # bug! prompt returns immediately, ZenTest
> gem not a dependency? a warning that autotest was not found would be nice.
Huh. The autospec command comes from RSpec; do you have this issue
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Antonio Faust45 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> rake spec
> ** Invoke spec (first_time, not_needed)
> and specs not started!
Oh! I' having the same problem and I just solved it! Well, half-solved it.
Rake, like make, operates on files. If you say "make somebinary
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Tim Walker wrote:
> Using AUTOFEATURE=true autospec and have a feature with multiple
> scenarios. When we save the feature or steps file AUTOTEST seems to
> only run the last scenario. Is this a known issue or are we doing
> something boneheaded, or both!?
Neithe
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Andrew Premdas wrote:
> then we have
>
> 1) Defined semantic tags that the designer should not touch
> 2) Not relied on any html elements that a designer might change
> 3) Created a step that works with the meaning of the UI not its presentation
>
> So what do you
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:50 PM, s.ross wrote:
> This question has, I'm sure, been asked and answered hundreds of times, but
> I was unable to turn up anything in Google. Here's the issue: I have some
> code in a Rails app in the lib/ directory that affects how views are
> rendered. Specifically
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Emmanuel Pinault wrote:
> So I have a file with my steps written like this
>
> require 'steputils'
>
> Given "some step description 1 " do
>SomeClass.post(args)
> end
>
> Given "some step description 2 that is slighty different for better
> readability "
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> I am facing a similar problem. Actually what happens, is that when I
> edit specs and then save, then autospec detects it and runs the specs,
> but when I edit the application's code only, then autospec doesn't run.
> Is that a normal behav
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
Going forward, what do people think about being able to say
mock.should_receive(:debug).with_block { |log_block|
# execute log_block, and check its return value
}
Thoughts?
Peter
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Yun Huang Yong wrote:
2009/3/28 Yi :
> How can I test flash.now[:key] is being set in a controller test? Both
> flash[:key] and flash.now[:key].should == message didn't work
>
> I can use response.session["flash"][:key].should == message . Just looks bad
That's odd. In a controller example, you should have a #flash m
28 matches
Mail list logo
