Hi,
My helper specs were going ok until I added a call to a rails
DateHelper method in one of my helpers
http://api.rubyonrails.com/classes/ActionView/Helpers/
DateHelper.html#M000574
The helper runs fine from my view templates, just dies in the spec test.
I boiled my question down to a simpl
Caboose Sample app
---
Courtenay
On Jul 30, 2007, at 7:48 PM, "Obie Fernandez"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trolling for example RSpec code. Any pointers appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> Obie
> ___
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users@rubyforge.
I'm trolling for example RSpec code. Any pointers appreciated.
Cheers,
Obie
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> I tend to work in small, complete vertical slices rather than
> completing one layer at a time. So rather than doing the whole view
> first, I'd do one small aspect of it and then push right down to the
> controller action that supports that aspect of it, then push down to
> the model, then back
as my rails application gets bigger, I find I'm writing the same generic
specs for standard CRUD operations. with 8 controllers so far, and more to
come, I'm keen to reduce the duplication. I asked before about generating
specs dynamically in this thread :
http://www.nabble.com/dynamic-specs-tf39
On 7/30/07, Doug Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In most of my tests I'd like to be able to stub out the observers for my
> models, but I'm not sure the best way to do this. I doesn't look like there
> is a way to stub all instance methods, and I don't seem to be able to stub
> early enough to s
In most of my tests I'd like to be able to stub out the observers for my
models, but I'm not sure the best way to do this. I doesn't look like there
is a way to stub all instance methods, and I don't seem to be able to stub
early enough to stub out the observer as it's instantiated. I can think o
On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would tend to disagree. RSpec is a Behaviour Driven Development
> > tool. The idea is that you write a small example of behaviour FIRST,
> > and use that example to drive the implementation. The reason you use
> > examples to drive impleme
> I would tend to disagree. RSpec is a Behaviour Driven Development
> tool. The idea is that you write a small example of behaviour FIRST,
> and use that example to drive the implementation. The reason you use
> examples to drive implementation comes from the idea in Test Driven
> Development that
On 7/30/07, Daniel N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, Daniel N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 7/30/07, Daniel N < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > On 7/30/07, Da
On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/30/07, Daniel N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 7/30/07, Daniel N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > On 7/3
On 7/30/07, Daniel N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, Daniel N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I find m
On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/30/07, Daniel N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and typ
On 7/30/07, Daniel N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
> > > the it shoulds...
> > >
> > > I ws thinking along the
On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
> > the it shoulds...
> >
> > I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be needed
> > is a ra
On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
> the it shoulds...
>
> I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be needed
> is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the specs
> takin
On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
> the it shoulds...
I think it would need to do a bit more.
If I call mock_model( User ) and the User class doesn't exist yet that will
blow it up.
I guess at that poi
On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David, true :)
>
> I think I was more mixing up "Test::Unit" and the unit directory under
> test in terms of Rails... the unit tests are to the models... ergo...
> my definitions were mixed up :)
Makes sense.
Thanks for playing.
Cheers,
Dav
David, true :)
I think I was more mixing up "Test::Unit" and the unit directory under
test in terms of Rails... the unit tests are to the models... ergo...
my definitions were mixed up :)
Anyway... back to coding :)
Mikel
On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Mike
On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Nathan,
> Starting with views and working "backwards" from a Test::Unit point of
> view has definately opened up a lot of RSpec doors for me.
I've definitely seen advice to start with models before, but I've not
seen anything that says "
I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
the it shoulds...
I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be needed
is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the specs
taking not of all the stubs and mocks method calls that are made.
The
On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Nathan,
>
> What you are sayiing is correct, and in terms of Ruby on Rails, BDD
> _IS_ View Driven development... or at least it should be IMHO.
>
> At the end of the day, the only thing that matters in a Rails App is
> the Behaviour sh
Dear Nathan,
What you are sayiing is correct, and in terms of Ruby on Rails, BDD
_IS_ View Driven development... or at least it should be IMHO.
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters in a Rails App is
the Behaviour shown to the user, who has as their only interface, the
View.
The use
23 matches
Mail list logo
