I see neither #with_steps_for, nor #run return anything resembling
the result of the tests (which does not really surprise me).
So how to get the success/pending/failure of the stories out?
Should I write a formatter/listener that exit(1)s on failure?
PS: I'm back after a few months, and
I believe calls to super are sufficiently internal to the Ruby interpreter
that a mocking framework can't intercept them without doing separate
implementations for separate Ruby interpreters (and likely even separate
versions). I could be wrong, but even so I'd recommend a different
approach.
If
Even when working test/spec-first, when I'm pairing with someone who isn't
experienced working that way, I find myself constantly saying I'm pretty
sure we don't need that yet. (I've just written the spec my pair is trying
to get passing, so I know how little code we need.) If it happens then,
In the particular case of super, another approach, though perhaps not using the
spec framework, would be to assert (a la Test::Unit) that your class is a
subclass of the intended superclass. To be truly anal, also assert that the
superclass has a method with the same name as the subclass's
I've seen that one too. Maybe has to do with how equality is defined in the
Time or DateTime class.
I get around it by comparing the string-ified versions:
foo.time.to_s.should == expected_time.to_s
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Joe Van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I occasionally get
I admit it, when it comes to rSpec, I'm lazy. I've made a few feeble
attempts to use it, but for once I'm waiting for a book-length
treatment. At least two books were announced, I think. Can anyone in
the know please report on their progress?
Thanks
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL
I sent an inquiry to Prag Bookshelf but didn't hear anything -- saw
something online that led me to believe they were the publisher.
PeepCode has several RSpec screencasts.
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Michael Schuerig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I admit it, when it comes to rSpec, I'm lazy.
There are three I know about, one of which I'm working on (Prag
Bookshelf). I can tell you the one I'm working on will be in beta
sometime in the next few months, but I can't really be any more
specific than that right now. I can assure you that as things get more
specific I'll be blogging
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Joe Van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I occasionally get this error:
1)
'A puzzle once featured, should no longer be nominated' FAILED
expected: Sun May 04 09:10:26 -0700 2008,
got: Sun May 04 09:10:26 -0700 2008 (using ==)
Just because too objects have the same to_s representation don't mean
they are equal:
The important equality in this case is what matters to the tester.
This is a similar issue to Floats where there's more precision than
the exernal representation shows.
Is there more precision than
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Steve Downey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there more precision than seconds in a Time instance?
irb(main):006:0 a,b = Time.now, Time.now
= [Sat May 03 11:06:31 -0700 2008, Sat May 03 11:06:31 -0700 2008]
irb(main):007:0 puts a.to_i, b.to_i
1209837991
I haven't been spec'ing lately, but been hopping back on and adding
autotest.
However I get an error:
http://pastie.caboo.se/177538/wrap
I also noticed a post by Scott and there was mention of rspec_autotest.
Is this is what everyone is using?
On 3.5.2008, at 22.18, Andrew Brown wrote:
I haven't been spec'ing lately, but been hopping back on and adding
autotest.
However I get an error:
http://pastie.caboo.se/177538/wrap
I also noticed a post by Scott and there was mention of
rspec_autotest.
Is this is what everyone is using?
I will, once I resolve the error.
On 3-May-08, at 3:21 PM, Jarkko Laine wrote:
On 3.5.2008, at 22.18, Andrew Brown wrote:
I haven't been spec'ing lately, but been hopping back on and adding
autotest.
However I get an error:
http://pastie.caboo.se/177538/wrap
I also noticed a post by
hi all,
i'm just trying to check a partial has been rendered, by using:
response.template.should_receive(:render).with(:partial = tasks/list)
this passes, even if I put something bogus in the partial name, such as:
response.template.should_receive(:render).with(:partial =
___tassdfsdfks/list)
On May 3, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Andrew Brown wrote:
I haven't been spec'ing lately, but been hopping back on and adding
autotest.
However I get an error:
http://pastie.caboo.se/177538/wrap
I also noticed a post by Scott and there was mention of
rspec_autotest.
Is this is what everyone is
On May 3, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Al Chou wrote:
In the particular case of super, another approach, though perhaps
not using the spec framework, would be to assert (a la Test::Unit)
that your class is a subclass of the intended superclass. To be
truly anal, also assert that the superclass has
On May 3, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Kyle Hargraves wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Steve Downey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there more precision than seconds in a Time instance?
irb(main):006:0 a,b = Time.now, Time.now
= [Sat May 03 11:06:31 -0700 2008, Sat May 03 11:06:31 -0700 2008]
On May 3, 2008, at 11:07 AM, John D. Hume wrote:
Even when working test/spec-first, when I'm pairing with someone who
isn't experienced working that way, I find myself constantly saying
I'm pretty sure we don't need that yet. (I've just written the
spec my pair is trying to get passing,
Thanks Scott that fixed it.
Forgot to do the obvious.
On 3-May-08, at 4:44 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
On May 3, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Andrew Brown wrote:
I haven't been spec'ing lately, but been hopping back on and adding
autotest.
However I get an error:
http://pastie.caboo.se/177538/wrap
I
Funny, I mostly like writing RSpec specs for Rails, aside from the fact that it
sometimes takes me a while to figure out exactly how and what I need to write
to specify what I want to specify.
In any case, I agree that the spec should specify what the method achieves, not
the fact that the
On May 3, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
I remember a joke that Aslak mentioned a while back ago on this
list: He had a friend (or co-worker) who wanted to write a tool
which would delete every line of code which didn't get covered with
rcov. I found that remark funny because Aslak
22 matches
Mail list logo
