In that case my specs will be also run by Test::Unit and
assertions/failures/blah count will be displayed. Not exactly what I want.
Satish Gunnu wrote:
>
> I had the same problem with some of my specs. Solved by adding
>
> require 'test/unit'
>
> to the spec file. Not complete sure why this o
This thread may help give you some insight...
http://www.mail-archive.com/rspec-users@rubyforge.org/msg05382.html
Zach
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Sam Stokes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just getting into RSpec stories and liking them (especially with
> webrat), but I'm findi
"Bryan Liles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> RSpec is a tool, it should be in face *minimally* (yes, this is important!)
> A
> job description that mentioned RSpec explicitly would signal a red flag to me.
I'm with Scott & Mark on this one. Tools matter, and good developers
usually have strong
Hi all,
I'm just getting into RSpec stories and liking them (especially with
webrat), but I'm finding it tricky to write steps that are
self-contained and reusable, particularly where features intersect.
What approaches do people use to achieve this?
(Maybe a better question is, do people bother?
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Bryan Liles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RSpec is a tool, it should be in face *minimally* (yes, this is important!)
> A job description that mentioned RSpec explicitly would signal a red flag
> to me.
>
BDD, Ruby on Rails, and OOP are just tools, too. They are e
On Sep 7, 2008, at 7:21 PM, Bryan Liles wrote:
RSpec is a tool, it should be in face *minimally* (yes, this is
important!) A job description that mentioned RSpec explicitly
would signal a red flag to me.
Not at all! A mention of RSpec would be a great thing. In fact, it's
one of the
RSpec is a tool, it should be in face *minimally* (yes, this is important!)
A job description that mentioned RSpec explicitly would signal a red flag
to me.
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Ashley Moran <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> But what things make a job appealing? What technologies, skills, practices
> and methodologies make for a good BDD role?
>
Just mentioning BDD is good. It's easily searched for, and if you indicate
that it's not just a bu
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 8:00 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> class Property
> def add_marker_to(map)
> map.add_marker Marker.new(address, latitude, longitude, contents)
> end
> end
>
> That reduces the surface contact between the Property and the Map even
> more.
>
The surface
Hi everyone,
Hope this is not too OT, but I know I will get a good answer here...
I will be soon* helping one of my clients write a job spec for an
agile software developer, to work on a Ruby web app using RSpec. I'd
just like to know something from experienced BDDers - what in a job
spec
10 matches
Mail list logo