On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Charles Grindel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the info, Luis. I am glad that they fixed the calling a batch
> file issue. I have had to handle this myself in several different
> situations.
>
> I do have one additional question. It sounds like y
Hi,
Thanks for the info, Luis. I am glad that they fixed the calling a batch file
issue. I have had to handle this myself in several different situations.
I do have one additional question. It sounds like your setup is very similar
to ours. Is your project new or did you upgrade? Do you ru
On Jul 13, 2008, at 5:03 pm, Sven Fuchs wrote:
Hey Ashley!
How's things? :)
Good thanks, just sadly not spent much time using RSpec lately...
Spam me off list if you want to catch up!
Wow, yes.
This also uses the block passed to should_receive, but in a nicer
way than my inital attemp
Hi Zach,
On 13.07.2008, at 17:59, Zach Dennis wrote:
You want cross mock ordering! I've wanted this in RSpec in the past
as well. The only ruby-based mocking library I know of that does
this is Hardmock. It looks like its RDoc now has instructions for it
to work with RSpec:
http://hardmoc
Hey Ashley!
How's things? :)
On 13.07.2008, at 17:44, Ashley Moran wrote:
I think you want
second.should_receive(:run) do
first.should_receive(:run)
end
which, if Mail.app is running my specs correctly, should only pass
if second receives :run before first
Is that what you were after
You want cross mock ordering! I've wanted this in RSpec in the past as well.
The only ruby-based mocking library I know of that does this is Hardmock. It
looks like its RDoc now has instructions for it to work with RSpec:
http://hardmock.rubyforge.org/
Zach
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Sven
On Jul 13, 2008, at 4:35 pm, Sven Fuchs wrote:
describe "Expecting the order of methods being called on arbitrary
objects" do
it "works" do
first = mock('first')
second = mock('second')
chain = Chain.new
chain << first
chain << second
second.should_receive(:run).ordered
On 13.07.2008, at 17:01, Sven Fuchs wrote:
On 13.07.2008, at 16:41, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Sven Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
I've been wondering how to expect arbitrary methods being
On 13.07.2008, at 16:41, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Sven Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
I've been wondering how to expect arbitrary methods being called
in a
particular order. The RSpec doc
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Sven Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've been wondering how to expect arbitrary methods being called in a
>> particular order. The RSpec documentation for expecting method calls on mock
>>
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Sven Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been wondering how to expect arbitrary methods being called in a
> particular order. The RSpec documentation for expecting method calls on mock
> objects mentions that it is possible to pass a block to #should_receive, bu
I've been wondering how to expect arbitrary methods being called in a
particular order. The RSpec documentation for expecting method calls
on mock objects mentions that it is possible to pass a block to
#should_receive, but does not mention that it can be used to track the
method call order
12 matches
Mail list logo
