Re: [rspec-users] Invite from Ben Askins ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Hey! That's private! :) its also OSS and very test::unit Sent from my iPhone On Sep 3, 2007, at 9:22 PM, "Andrew WC Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What about Caboose Facebook? http://faces.caboo.se On 9/4/07, Ben Mabey < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hmm... maybe it was somehow speced out

Re: [rspec-users] 1.05 to 1.08

On 4/09/2007, at 3:44 PM, David Chelimsky wrote: > On 9/3/07, Shane Mingins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi >> >> We are looking at moving a project over from 1.05 to 1.08 but have >> a problem >> with some of our helper specs >> >> They work fine in 1.05 but error in 1.08 and it is the calls

Re: [rspec-users] Invite from Ben Askins ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

What about Caboose Facebook? http://faces.caboo.se On 9/4/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm... maybe it was somehow speced out in rspec at least ;) > > Andrew WC Brown wrote: > > but its not even built with Rails. > > > > On 9/3/07, *Ben Askins* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >

Re: [rspec-users] Invite from Ben Askins ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Hmm... maybe it was somehow speced out in rspec at least ;) Andrew WC Brown wrote: > but its not even built with Rails. > > On 9/3/07, *Ben Askins* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Quechup.com > Trouble viewing this e-mail - click here >

Re: [rspec-users] Invite from Ben Askins ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Oh, this make my day: " You received this because Ben Askins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) knows and agreed to invite you. You will only receive one invite from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quechup will not spam or sell your email address - privacy policy . (c) Quechup 2007." Yeah, Ben

Re: [rspec-users] Invite from Ben Askins ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

but its not even built with Rails. On 9/3/07, Ben Askins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [image: Quechup.com] > Trouble viewing this e-mail - click > here

Re: [rspec-users] 1.05 to 1.08

On 9/3/07, Shane Mingins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > We are looking at moving a project over from 1.05 to 1.08 but have a problem > with some of our helper specs > > They work fine in 1.05 but error in 1.08 and it is the calls to route helper > methods that seems to be the problem. > > I di

[rspec-users] Invite from Ben Askins ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

BenAskins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has invited you as a friend on Quechup... ...the social networking platform sweeping the globe Go to: http://quechup.com/join.php/aT0wMDAwMDAwMDA5MjY4NjU2JmM9OTc1NDE%3D to accept Ben's invite You can use Quechup to meet new people, catch up with old friends,

[rspec-users] 1.05 to 1.08

Hi We are looking at moving a project over from 1.05 to 1.08 but have a problem with some of our helper specs They work fine in 1.05 but error in 1.08 and it is the calls to route helper methods that seems to be the problem. I did some playing around .. because the code being tested is

Re: [rspec-users] blog post on story runner

Cool, I appreciate it. Updated the post to reflect your changes. Pat On 9/3/07, Dan North <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fixed. Sorry about that. > > > > Pat Maddox wrote: > Hey Dan, > > I noticed it now becomes > "Given...And...Given...And...GivenWhenThen...And...Then...And" > > Desi

Re: [rspec-users] blog post on story runner

Fixed. Sorry about that. Pat Maddox wrote: Hey Dan, I noticed it now becomes "Given...And...Given...And...GivenWhenThen...And...Then...And" Desired behavior? Seems a bit strange...I prefer the consistency of "Given...Given...Given" though I think "Given...And...And" would be more nat

Re: [rspec-users] blog post on story runner

Oops. That sounds like a bug. Pat Maddox wrote: Hey Dan, I noticed it now becomes "Given...And...Given...And...GivenWhenThen...And...Then...And" Desired behavior? Seems a bit strange...I prefer the consistency of "Given...Given...Given" though I think "Given...And...And" would be more

Re: [rspec-users] blog post on story runner

Hey Dan, I noticed it now becomes "Given...And...Given...And...GivenWhenThen...And...Then...And" Desired behavior? Seems a bit strange...I prefer the consistency of "Given...Given...Given" though I think "Given...And...And" would be more natural. Pat On 9/3/07, Dan North <[EMAIL PROTEC

[rspec-users] Restatement: The Rspec Mocking Framework

This is and important enough announcement that I though it wise to put in a new thread so it doesn't get buried: On Sep 3, 2007, at 8:42 AM, David Chelimsky wrote: > Hi all, > > I've talked this over w/ a couple of the other committers and we've > decided that we will NOT be deprecating the mo

Re: [rspec-users] blog post on story runner

Pat, if you update from trunk and re-run the formatter, you'll get Given ... And ... instead of Given ... Given ... in the output. Great write-up - thanks for taking the time. Cheers, Dan Pat Maddox wrote: On 9/2/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here's an excellent blog pos

Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

Hi all, I've talked this over w/ a couple of the other committers and we've decided that we will NOT be deprecating the mock framework, at least for the foreseeable future. If/when we do, it will happen with plenty of notice and a clear, painless (as much as is possible) upgrade path. To be clear

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

> So I guess I just talked myself into .spec :) Please don't make such changes for rspec as a whole. I'm not particularly found of enabling yet another file type to use VIM's ruby ftplugin. -- Cheers, Eivind Uggedal Engineer, Faculty of Social Science, MSc Computer Science, University of Oslo __

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/3/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/3/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 9/3/07

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On 9/3/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/3/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/3/07, Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > >

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/3/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/3/07, Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Easy one - I just wondered why all spec files for rs

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On 9/3/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/3/07, Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > Easy one - I just wondered why all spec files for rspec_on_rails end > > > "_spec.rb" instead of just ".rb"? They are

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/3/07, Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi > > > > Easy one - I just wondered why all spec files for rspec_on_rails end > > "_spec.rb" instead of just ".rb"? They are all inside the spec > > folder so surely the fact they are s

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On 9/3/07, Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > Easy one - I just wondered why all spec files for rspec_on_rails end > "_spec.rb" instead of just ".rb"? They are all inside the spec > folder so surely the fact they are specs is implicit? For me, personally, if I'm in TextMate and I se

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On 9/3/07, Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3 Sep 2007, at 13:47, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > > > I know it's very application-specific, but one good reason for this > > is that it makes finding files in TextMate much easier when you hit > > Command-T; you type a few characters and at a

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On 9/3/07, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 3, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Ashley Moran wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Easy one - I just wondered why all spec files for rspec_on_rails end > > "_spec.rb" instead of just ".rb"? They are all inside the spec > > folder so surely the fact they are spe

Re: [rspec-users] testing behaviour or testing code?

On 9/3/07, Peter Marklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's a very useful guideline in TDD that says "test YOUR code, not > > everyone elses." The validation library we're testing here is > > ActiveRecord's. It's already tested (we hope!). > > Personally, I don't have the courage to assume Rai

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On 3 Sep 2007, at 13:47, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > I know it's very application-specific, but one good reason for this > is that it makes finding files in TextMate much easier when you hit > Command-T; you type a few characters and at a glance can distinguish > between spec and implementation fil

Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

Zach, I believe version 0.7.0 has the global ordering you are looking for: Version 0.7.0 Added and_yield as an expectation clause. Inspect on Mocks now yield a more consise description. Global ordering across all mocks in a container is now allowed. Added support for Demeter chain mocking. Deprec

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On Sep 3, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Ashley Moran wrote: > Hi > > Easy one - I just wondered why all spec files for rspec_on_rails end > "_spec.rb" instead of just ".rb"? They are all inside the spec > folder so surely the fact they are specs is implicit? > Personally, I think the only reason we keep it

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

On Sep 3, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Ashley Moran wrote: > Hi > > Easy one - I just wondered why all spec files for rspec_on_rails end > "_spec.rb" instead of just ".rb"? They are all inside the spec > folder so surely the fact they are specs is implicit? > Personally, I think the only reason we keep it

Re: [rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

El 3/9/2007, a las 13:59, Ashley Moran escribió: > Hi > > Easy one - I just wondered why all spec files for rspec_on_rails end > "_spec.rb" instead of just ".rb"? They are all inside the spec > folder so surely the fact they are specs is implicit? > > Ashley I know it's very application-specific

[rspec-users] Reason for _spec.rb convention

Hi Easy one - I just wondered why all spec files for rspec_on_rails end "_spec.rb" instead of just ".rb"? They are all inside the spec folder so surely the fact they are specs is implicit? Ashley ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.o

Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

On 9/3/07, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 3, 2007, at 5:19 AM, Rodrigo Alvarez Fernández wrote: > > > I would like to know if the mock framework will be deprecated, since I > > have a pair of feature requests, and I don't know where to request > > them: > > > > 1) Alternative ex

Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

On Sep 3, 2007, at 5:19 AM, Rodrigo Alvarez Fernández wrote: > I would like to know if the mock framework will be deprecated, since I > have a pair of feature requests, and I don't know where to request > them: > > 1) Alternative expectations: > > mock.should_receive(:save). > and_return(false)

Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

On 9/3/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/3/07, Rodrigo Alvarez Fernández <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/3/07, Peter Marklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 2) Chained stubs/expectations > > > > > > > > mock.stub!(:valid?).and_return(false) > > > > mock.stub!(:valid?).and_ret

Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

On 9/3/07, Rodrigo Alvarez Fernández <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/3/07, Peter Marklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 2) Chained stubs/expectations > > > > > > mock.stub!(:valid?).and_return(false) > > > mock.stub!(:valid?).and_return(true).after_receiving > > > (:save).and_return(true) > >

Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

On 9/3/07, Peter Marklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2) Chained stubs/expectations > > > > mock.stub!(:valid?).and_return(false) > > mock.stub!(:valid?).and_return(true).after_receiving > > (:save).and_return(true) > > On first look, that last line is pretty hard to read. I think I > understand

Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

> 2) Chained stubs/expectations > > mock.stub!(:valid?).and_return(false) > mock.stub!(:valid?).and_return(true).after_receiving > (:save).and_return(true) On first look, that last line is pretty hard to read. I think I understand the intention now, but I'm not sure it harmonizes with the "Cl

Re: [rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

I would like to know if the mock framework will be deprecated, since I have a pair of feature requests, and I don't know where to request them: 1) Alternative expectations: mock.should_receive(:save). and_return(false). or_receive(:save!). and_raise(ActiveRecord::RecordNotSaved) 2) Chained

Re: [rspec-users] testing behaviour or testing code?

On Sep 3, 2007, at 3:48 AM, Pat Maddox wrote: > On 9/3/07, Peter Marklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> There's a very useful guideline in TDD that says "test YOUR code, >>> not >>> everyone elses." The validation library we're testing here is >>> ActiveRecord's. It's already tested (we hope!)

Re: [rspec-users] testing behaviour or testing code?

On 9/3/07, Peter Marklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's a very useful guideline in TDD that says "test YOUR code, not > > everyone elses." The validation library we're testing here is > > ActiveRecord's. It's already tested (we hope!). > > Personally, I don't have the courage to assume Rai

Re: [rspec-users] testing behaviour or testing code?

> There's a very useful guideline in TDD that says "test YOUR code, not > everyone elses." The validation library we're testing here is > ActiveRecord's. It's already tested (we hope!). Personally, I don't have the courage to assume Rails code is always working. I know from experience it doesn't