That's correct, I'm still on 1.0.8. Sorry for forgetting to mention that. I'm
trying to keep some semblance of sanity as to knowing what versions of code I'm
using, given how scattered I am about a subset of it (viz., Substruct).
Al
- Original Message
From: David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PR
On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Matthew Lins wrote:
> On 12/4/07 2:53 PM, "Shane Mingins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2007, at 9:43 AM, Matthew Lins wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm running AutoTest with Rspec on a Rails application.
>>>
>>> Every 20 or so runs I get "stack level too dee
On Dec 5, 2007 9:36 AM, Al Chou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Uh, shouldn't they both work? I use TRUE (and FALSE) because I like the
> facts that a) they stand out typographically and b) they are Ruby constants.
> I can't believe the case of the letters matters, unless you are doing
> something
Pasting more of your code would help. I get this error when infinite
recursion creeps into the application, or in my specs.. like when you
run .save! on a model that has an after_filter calling save!
On Dec 5, 2007 10:37 AM, Matthew Lins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/4/07 2:53 PM, "Shane Ming
Uh, shouldn't they both work? I use TRUE (and FALSE) because I like the facts
that a) they stand out typographically and b) they are Ruby constants. I can't
believe the case of the letters matters, unless you are doing something
meta-programmingy rather than just passing the value through to
On 12/4/07 2:53 PM, "Shane Mingins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/12/2007, at 9:43 AM, Matthew Lins wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm running AutoTest with Rspec on a Rails application.
>>
>> Every 20 or so runs I get "stack level too deep" on one particular
>> controller stub.
>>
>>
>
>
>
On Dec 5, 2007 9:17 AM, Tom Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2007, at 15:02, David Chelimsky wrote:
> >> @order_address = mock_model( OrderAddress, :null_object => TRUE )
> > :null_object => true (lower case) should work.
>
> Well, I'm talking bollocks then, aren't I?
Actually, it tur
On Dec 5, 2007 9:07 AM, Tom Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2007, at 14:52, Al Chou wrote:
> > @order_address = mock_model( OrderAddress, :null_object => TRUE )
> > Mock 'OrderAddress_1026' received unexpected message :first_name
> > with (no args)
> > so I'm starting to wonder wheth
Cool, I'll use mock for this purpose in the future!
Al
- Original Message
From: Tom Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rspec-users
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 7:07:55 AM
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] Does mock_model's :null_object option work?
On 5 Dec 2007, at 14:52, Al Chou wrote:
>
On 5 Dec 2007, at 15:02, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> @order_address = mock_model( OrderAddress, :null_object => TRUE )
> :null_object => true (lower case) should work.
Well, I'm talking bollocks then, aren't I?
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rub
On 5 Dec 2007, at 14:52, Al Chou wrote:
> @order_address = mock_model( OrderAddress, :null_object => TRUE )
> Mock 'OrderAddress_1026' received unexpected message :first_name
> with (no args)
> so I'm starting to wonder whether the :null_object option is doing
> anything at all
:null_obj
On Dec 5, 2007 8:52 AM, Al Chou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please understand in the following that I am making relatively minor changes
> to legacy (non-TDD/BDD) code in Substruct and don't have the time to
> refactor nicely right now. I'm just trying to get past the
> untested/un-speced cruft
Please understand in the following that I am making relatively minor changes
to legacy (non-TDD/BDD) code in Substruct and don't have the time to refactor
nicely right now. I'm just trying to get past the untested/un-speced cruft
quickly to write the spec for my new code, so I'm looking for ex
13 matches
Mail list logo
