On Oct 19, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
> On 10/19/07, Daniel Tenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If I read correctly, Daniel is suggesting that this is not behaviour
>>> because he's equating behaviour with interaction. This example
>>> checks
>>> an outcome, not an interaction.
>>>
Thanks for the response. I understand your reasoning, especially about
the whole BDD approach being an unproven/agreed on.
And yes, you have made it really easy to make and distribute custom
matchers. So thank you! I'll keep these extra matchers as a plugin for
now.
-Ben
David Chelimsky wr
On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
> > On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I would think that something like this should be worked into
> >> rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and
> >> painless. One line of
David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I would think that something like this should be worked into
>> rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and
>> painless. One line of code = One line of test code.
>>
>
> I'd be hesitant
On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would think that something like this should be worked into
> rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and
> painless. One line of code = One line of test code.
I'd be hesitant to include it in rspec_on_rails. I don't rea
I can see the good in simplicity there. I just liked the ability to
say Foo.has_many(:bars).through(:foobars) in such a readable way. I
did write methodology for a more terse listing of the options as
Foo.has_many(:bars).with_options(:through => :bars) etc.
RSL
On 10/19/07, Jerrett Taylor <[EMAIL
Cool. Well, it actually wasn't my code to begin with. I like the
extension you have done, though, and will integrate it into the current
set of matchers I'm using (I have done some tweaks of my own to the
original code.) Thanks.
-Ben
Russell Norris wrote:
> Ben, I actually looked through yr
Ben, I actually looked through yr code when coming up with this idea
but tried to take it one notch "cooler", i guess. with the whole
has_many(:foos).through(:bars) part.
RSL
On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been using a set of matchers that does this plus adds more AR bas
sorry.. I meant to say "spec code". :)
Ben Mabey wrote:
> I've been using a set of matchers that does this plus adds more AR basic
> matchers (such as validate_presence_of, etc.. - by testing the
> behavior.) I got the base of my matchers from this blog:
> http://spicycode.com/2007/4/2/rspec-e
I've been using a set of matchers that does this plus adds more AR basic
matchers (such as validate_presence_of, etc.. - by testing the
behavior.) I got the base of my matchers from this blog:
http://spicycode.com/2007/4/2/rspec-expecation-matchers-part-ii
I would think that something like thi
We have a similar one, which works like:
Foo.should have_association(:has_many, :conditions => "stuff", :through
=> :bazes)
we started off with should have_many etc, but it became overcomplicated
with all the various things that you may want - so we changed to
have_association to make it sim
On Oct 19, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Jonathan Linowes wrote:
> from my specs on restful_authentication's models/user_observer_spec.rb
>
> context "A UserObserver" do
> setup do
> @user = mock('user')
> @user_observer = UserObserver.instance
> end
>
> specify "should call UserNotifier.delive
Yeah, you have two options really. The first is to do what linoj said
and mock out the mailer that you are using. The other way, which Pat,
was referring to was to actually check the mail queue. I generally do
both. The reason being is that I want to make sure that I am using the
correct ma
On Oct 19, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Ben Mabey wrote:
>
yes, upon closer inspection,
(as in http://www.vaporbase.com/postings/
Rspec_1.0_and_Restful_Authentication)
in spec_helper.rb
def set_mailer_in_test
ActionMailer::Base.delivery_method = :test
ActionMailer::Base.perform_deliveries = true
On Oct 19, 2007, at 1:54 PM, s.ross wrote:
On Oct 18, 2007, at 6:09 AM, Daniel N wrote:
On 9/11/07, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a story where the user resets the password [hey, this story
thing really rocks!]. It is expected that the password will change
and that the user will be
On Oct 19, 2007, at 12:18 PM, Paul Dlug wrote:
> Is it possible to stub a Kernel method? I'm specifically interested in
> the 'open' method to test some code using open-uri. I've tried:
>
> Kernel.should_receive(:open).with('filename').and_return('data')
>
> However, this doesn't seem to work. An
On 10/19/07, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2007, at 6:09 AM, Daniel N wrote:
>
>
> On 9/11/07, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have a story where the user resets the password [hey, this story
> > thing really rocks!]. It is expected that the password will change
> > a
I would like it :-)
On 19 Oct 2007, at 19:45 19 Oct 2007, Russell Norris wrote:
> I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows
> you to specify things like:
>
> Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes)
>
> I'm pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have sug
I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows
you to specify things like:
Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes)
I'm pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have suggested
that I should submit it to the rspec_on_rails project. Before I go to
the trouble of
On Oct 18, 2007, at 6:09 AM, Daniel N wrote:
On 9/11/07, s.ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a story where the user resets the password [hey, this story
thing really rocks!]. It is expected that the password will change
and that the user will be redirected to a login screen. A side effect
i
On 10/19/07, Paul Dlug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to stub a Kernel method? I'm specifically interested in
> the 'open' method to test some code using open-uri. I've tried:
>
> Kernel.should_receive(:open).with('filename').and_return('data')
>
> However, this doesn't seem to work. A
On 10/19/07, Daniel Tenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If I read correctly, Daniel is suggesting that this is not behaviour
> > because he's equating behaviour with interaction. This example checks
> > an outcome, not an interaction.
> >
>
> That's right, one of my axioms is that "specifying" in
Is it possible to stub a Kernel method? I'm specifically interested in
the 'open' method to test some code using open-uri. I've tried:
Kernel.should_receive(:open).with('filename').and_return('data')
However, this doesn't seem to work. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
--Paul
__
On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:42 am, Alastair Moore wrote:
> Oh, incidently, I found a couple of useful links:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8135690990081075324
Watched that ages ago - it's good but looks really old school
compared to the new syntax!
> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/rub
> If I read correctly, Daniel is suggesting that this is not behaviour
> because he's equating behaviour with interaction. This example checks
> an outcome, not an interaction.
>
That's right, one of my axioms is that "specifying" involves
behaviour/interaction, not state/outcome.
The reason fo
On 10/19/07, Jonathan Linowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But dont you really just want to test the behavior of the class?
The object, not the class.
> (whereas the validator call is an implementation)
> such as
>
> it "should require digits" do
>p = PhoneNumber.new( :digits => nil )
>
But dont you really just want to test the behavior of the class?
(whereas the validator call is an implementation)
such as
it "should require digits" do
p = PhoneNumber.new( :digits => nil )
p.should_not be_valid
p.errors.on(:digits).should == "can't be blank"
end
On Oct 19,
On 10/19/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Another alternative combining your suggestion with what Pat
> >> mentioned:
> >>
> >> step_matchers do |match|
> >>match.given ...
> >>match.when ...
> >>match.then ...
> >> end
> >
> > That's nice, except we don't want metho
Hi all,
I've been thinking about the whole validator/relationship speccing
issue, and I came up with a suggestion, which I'd love to get some
feedback on.
The full article is available at http://www.inter-sections.net/
2007/10/19/what-to-test-and-specify-and-where-to-do-it/ , with the
rele
El 19/10/2007, a las 0:41, "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> On 10/18/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> El 18/10/2007, a las 18:42, "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> escribió:
>>
>>> Easier to type, sure. I'm not in love w/ the names yet though
>>> becau
Hi David,
If you give me some direction I'll try & submit a patch.
Keith
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Thanks for the tip & sympathy.
I reinstalled rspec from scratch with a fresh project to investigate the
error.
Turns out that the `rake spec:models` clones the test db from the dev
environment! I incorrectly assumed that the test db was migrated up &
down independently. I mailed a work around
Hi Dan,
You might find these links helpful when spec'ing restful auth
http://www.vaporbase.com/postings/Rspec_1.0_and_Restful_Authentication
http://jonathan.tron.name/articles/2007/01/02/rspec-on-rails-restful-authentication
http://www.caboo.se/articles/2006/10/29/rspec-on-rails
Keith
Dan, you can take a look at what *court3nay did, here:
* **
http://sample.caboo.se/empty_rails_app/trunk/spec/controllers/session_controller_spec.rb
Robert
On 10/18/07, Brandon Keepers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dan,
>
> On Oct 18, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Dan Croak wrote:
>
> > Hey folks,
> >
> >
34 matches
Mail list logo
