Re: [rspec-users] Caveman Questions

On 9/5/07, sudara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello! > > I'm just a caveman with some caveman questions. > > I've been parsing Rspec for quite a while, and I'm writing my first series > of specs. My initial impressions are "Verbose, but understandable. Helpful > and intuitive, but so much to dig

[rspec-users] Caveman Questions

Hello! I'm just a caveman with some caveman questions. I've been parsing Rspec for quite a while, and I'm writing my first series of specs. My initial impressions are "Verbose, but understandable. Helpful and intuitive, but so much to digest." I want to congratulate the folks who are dedicating

Re: [rspec-users] Content assist for spec files

On Sep 5, 2007, at 7:05 PM, Tor Norbye wrote: > > The problem is that when I'm looking at a spec file, there are no > require-statements. Obviously, the methods I see called in the spec > files must be defined by the test runner itself before running the > spec file. > > Can somebody enlighten me

[rspec-users] Content assist for spec files

Hi there, I'm working on Ruby support for NetBeans, and we're bundling RSpec (along with JRuby). One thing I'd really like to fix is having content assist (code completion / intellisense / code insight, it has many names) work inside your spec files such that you can not only hit ctrl-space

Re: [rspec-users] 1.05 to 1.08

On 9/5/07, Shane Mingins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/09/2007, at 10:00 AM, David Chelimsky wrote: > > >> Boiled down the next routes problem in a helper spec ... using > >> with_routing > >> > >>it do > >> with_routing do |set| > >> > >> set.draw do |map| > >> ma

Re: [rspec-users] 1.05 to 1.08

On 5/09/2007, at 10:00 AM, David Chelimsky wrote: >> Boiled down the next routes problem in a helper spec ... using >> with_routing >> >>it do >> with_routing do |set| >> >> set.draw do |map| >> map.resources :articles do |article| >> article.resources :com

Re: [rspec-users] False Positives and Autotest on New Folders

On 9/5/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > False Positives > I just discovered how easy it was to create a false positive when I, trying > my first RSpec test, did this: >ob.should eql?('foo') > instead of: >ob.should eql('foo') > or: >ob.should == 'foo' > > As far as I ca

Re: [rspec-users] False Positives and Autotest on New Folders

On 9/5/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > False Positives > I just discovered how easy it was to create a false positive when I, trying > my first RSpec test, did this: >ob.should eql?('foo') > instead of: >ob.should eql('foo') > or: >ob.should == 'foo' > > As far as I ca

[rspec-users] Rspec Caveman questions.

Hello! I'm just a caveman with some caveman questions. I've been parsing Rspec for quite a while, and I'm writing my first series of specs. My initial impressions are "Verbose, but understandable. Helpful and intuitive, but so much to digest." I want to congratulate the folks who are dedicating

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

On 9/5/07, Steven R. Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wilson Bilkovich wrote: > > On 9/5/07, Christoph Sturm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> everybody in this thread is reacting like you are about to remove the > >> built in mocking. The idea was to deprecate it, something like > >> > >> "if

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

Wilson Bilkovich wrote: > On 9/5/07, Christoph Sturm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> everybody in this thread is reacting like you are about to remove the >> built in mocking. The idea was to deprecate it, something like >> >> "if you use the build in mocking right now, fine. If you start a new

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

On 9/5/07, Christoph Sturm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > everybody in this thread is reacting like you are about to remove the > built in mocking. The idea was to deprecate it, something like > > "if you use the build in mocking right now, fine. If you start a new > project dont use it" > > One thin

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

On 9/2/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/2/07, Wilson Bilkovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/1/07, rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 1 Sep 2007, at 10:04, Tom Stuart wrote: > > > > > > > On 1 Sep 2007, at 09:31, rupert wrote: > > > >>> Are we planning on d

[rspec-users] False Positives and Autotest on New Folders

False Positives I just discovered how easy it was to create a false positive when I, trying my first RSpec test, did this: ob.should eql?('foo') instead of: ob.should eql('foo') or: ob.should == 'foo' As far as I can see, this is roughly equivalent to: ob.should false Neither eql?('foo

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

Lance Carlson wrote: > If core was to deprecate the included mocking framework, then why > would they favor mocha over flexmock? I agree we need to have some > agreement as to which one to use, but why the favoritism? If my grandmother had wheels, would she be a skateboard? They're not deprecatin

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

If core was to deprecate the included mocking framework, then why would they favor mocha over flexmock? I agree we need to have some agreement as to which one to use, but why the favoritism? On 9/5/07, Christoph Sturm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > everybody in this thread is reacting like you are a

Re: [rspec-users] response.should render_layout ....

do you mean get :index response.should render_template(:index) ? On 9/5/07, Jonathan Linowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's how I did it > > http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/2007-May/001818.html > > linoj > > > On Sep 5, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Ingo Weiss wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > is the

Re: [rspec-users] response.should render_layout ....

Here's how I did it http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/2007-May/001818.html linoj On Sep 5, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Ingo Weiss wrote: > Hi, > > is there a way to assert in rspec that a template is rendered in a > specific layout? > > Thanks! > Ingo > _

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ashley Moran wrote: > On 4 Sep 2007, at 23:36, Dan North wrote: > >> C-hash > > I think you meant C-pound... > > > > ___ > rspec-user

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

On 4 Sep 2007, at 23:36, Dan North wrote: > C-hash I think you meant C-pound... ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-

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

On 4 Sep 2007, at 23:36, Dan North wrote: > If we come up with a programming language-independent way of > representing specs, then I'm all for a .spec suffix. (Perhaps the > specdoc descriptions might be something along those lines.) Good point. I did consider suggesting .rspec as an exten

[rspec-users] response.should render_layout ....

Hi, is there a way to assert in rspec that a template is rendered in a specific layout? Thanks! Ingo ___ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

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

everybody in this thread is reacting like you are about to remove the built in mocking. The idea was to deprecate it, something like "if you use the build in mocking right now, fine. If you start a new project dont use it" One thing is clear, mocha is much nicer than the integrated mocking, nicer

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

On 9/3/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 mock framework, at least > for the foreseeable future. If/when we do, it will happen with plenty > of notice and a cl

Re: [rspec-users] Failure Messages in RSpec

El 4/9/2007, a las 22:51, Geoffrey Wiseman escribió: > Using this as an example, if a new validation rule is added, this > test will > fail without indicating /why/. Sure, I can get that answer in > other ways, > but I'd hate to discover things like: > > it "should be valid with valid attribu