On 10.9.2008, at 0.29, Zach Dennis wrote:
I don't think this works as you may expect since My
SQL and PostgreSQL don't support nested transactions, which is what
would happen if your test environment wrapped stories/scenarios in
transactions and your application utilized transactions.
I've been
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Greg Hauptmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Q2 - Anyone know where the "build" method that Ryan used in his Rails
> cast? Was this a mocha method? (I couldn't see it in the api).
> Reference: http://railscasts.com/episodes/81-fixtures-in-rails-2-0
No, I skimmed th
"aslak hellesoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:16 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Aslak - I think Matt is looking for this:
>>
>> Given /blah/ do
>> pending
>> end
>>
>
> I'm not crazy about this "feature". We already have a pending
> mechanism for steps
Sam Stokes wrote:
It seems to me that with
"Given an existing post 'lol internet'" # creates a post with that title
"Then the page should include 'lol internet'" # assumes a post with that
title
the assumptions are in line with what you'd naturally understand from
the English, whereas
"Gi
On Sep 9, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Tim Glen wrote:
Did you see that my code uses extend?
Yes - tried both in my flailing about :)
If that still doesn't work, file a bug report.
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211-cucumber/overview
It might be a FixtureReplacement bug, but I'll still loo
Thanks everyone for your responses - this is a really helpful discussion
and every post has added to my understanding. Thanks also for
disagreeing with each other, as it makes me feel less stupid for asking
the question :)
Jim Morris wrote:
> Ok I think I see the difference, by the state being
aslak hellesoy wrote:
There is persistent state (database) and object state (the object that
serves as a context for a scenario).
I'm not saying that state in and of itself is bad. However, *coupling*
is bad - for maintenance reasons. If the steps share object state (in
@variables) they become
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9 Sep 2008, at 19:52, Jim Morris wrote:
>
>> aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>
>>> The debate seems to be whether step definitions should be stateful or
>>> not.
>>> In practice this is achieved by setting one or more @variables in
Thanks for the hints, but I think I did point out I am not using Rails, I write Integration tests,
that talk directly to the web application via HTTP running the full stack.
So Active record is not available neither are transactions for the database.
Sorry for the confusion.
If I were using Ra
On 9 Sep 2008, at 21:34, aslak hellesoy wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:46 PM, David Chelimsky
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM, aslak hellesoy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:16 PM, David Chelimsky
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aslak - I think Mat
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:46 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM, aslak hellesoy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:16 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Aslak - I think Matt is looking for this:
>>>
>>> Given /blah/
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Jim Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> aslak hellesoy wrote:
>
>> The debate seems to be whether step definitions should be stateful or not.
>> In practice this is achieved by setting one or more @variables in a
>> step and reusing them in a different step - all wit
On 9 Sep 2008, at 19:52, Jim Morris wrote:
aslak hellesoy wrote:
The debate seems to be whether step definitions should be stateful
or not.
In practice this is achieved by setting one or more @variables in a
step and reusing them in a different step - all within a scenario.
I think that i
Did you see that my code uses extend?
Yes - tried both in my flailing about :)
If that still doesn't work, file a bug report.
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211-cucumber/overview
It might be a FixtureReplacement bug, but I'll still look into it.
Could it be that FixtureReplacem
Did you see that my code uses extend?
Yes - tried both in my flailing about :)
If that still doesn't work, file a bug report.
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211-cucumber/overview
It might be a FixtureReplacement bug, but I'll still look into it.
Could it be that FixtureReplacemen
aslak hellesoy wrote:
The debate seems to be whether step definitions should be stateful or not.
In practice this is achieved by setting one or more @variables in a
step and reusing them in a different step - all within a scenario.
I think that is the debate, but I'd like to point out that th
On Sep 09, 2008, at 3:00 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
Sorry man, to get us you're going to have to talk about vegetables
and Features.
Actually I'm going to be giving a short talk on BDD story/feature
writing + Cucumber + RSpec + Celerity at my next local monthly mini-
conference/geek beer-
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM, aslak hellesoy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:16 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Aslak - I think Matt is looking for this:
>>
>> Given /blah/ do
>> pending
>> end
>>
>
> I'm not crazy about this "feature". We already have a
Before do
self.extend(FixtureReplacement)
end
I had previously tried this right in the steps file:
Before do
self.include(FixtureReplacement)
end
Actually - this turned out to almost the right thing. I just added
this to my env.rb:
`include FixtureReplacement`
Wrapping it in the Before bl
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Tim Glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Remember these things should use transactions, and may do that by default
>>> -
>>> the database will be wiped clean once the features have run.
>>>
>
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Jim Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan North wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim.
>>
>> I guess I'm not a purist then - that looks fine to me, and it's probably
>> something I would consider doing too.
>>
>
> I'd never call you a purist Dan ;) But I do feel less dirty now, alth
Dan North wrote:
Hi Jim.
I guess I'm not a purist then - that looks fine to me, and it's probably
something I would consider doing too.
I'd never call you a purist Dan ;) But I do feel less dirty now, although after
reading Aslaks post
I wonder what exactly is meant by stateless steps? It
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Remember these things should use transactions, and may do that by
default -
the database will be wiped clean once the features have run.
sorry - I wasn't trying to say that the database is empty after the
scenarios are r
It's by design, but I'm open for suggestions. David created a similar
ticket yesterday:
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211/tickets/8-all-steps-
after-a-failure-are-listed-as-skipped#ticket-8-1
Currently, only a failure (red) will cause subsequent steps to be
skipped.
In case I've
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remember these things should use transactions, and may do that by default -
> the database will be wiped clean once the features have run.
>
FWIW, When Cucumber is used with Rails it runs all scenarios in a transaction.
I hav
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah the trouble is it fails with the following error:
>
> Spec::Example::ExamplePendingError
>
> Which cucumber doesn't understand as anything other than a complete fail.
>
> Our workaround we've arrived at (thanks Aslak for p
Yeah the trouble is it fails with the following error:
Spec::Example::ExamplePendingError
Which cucumber doesn't understand as anything other than a complete
fail.
Our workaround we've arrived at (thanks Aslak for pointing out the
obvious that we'd missed!) is to just write PENDING at the
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:16 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aslak - I think Matt is looking for this:
>
> Given /blah/ do
> pending
> end
>
I'm not crazy about this "feature". We already have a pending
mechanism for steps (not defining them). What does this bring to the
table ove
Remember these things should use transactions, and may do that by
default - the database will be wiped clean once the features have run.
On 9 Sep 2008, at 18:22, Tim Glen wrote:
Hey guys,
I'd never used RSpec Stories before, so I decided to follow the
apparent direction of the wind and jus
Hey guys,
I'd never used RSpec Stories before, so I decided to follow the
apparent direction of the wind and just jump right into cucumber. I'm
dabbling with/using Cucumber and really like it. Good job, aslak!
Where i'm struggling right now is using either fixtures or a model
factory meth
Aslak - I think Matt is looking for this:
Given /blah/ do
pending
end
Matt - I'm pretty sure that will work - give it a shot, OK?
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Aslak Hellesøy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A plain text step with no matching step definition is pending.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
A plain text step with no matching step definition is pending.
Sent from my iPhone
On 9. sep.. 2008, at 19.05, "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Have you tried?
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I love the way I can throw a call to pending(
Have you tried?
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I love the way I can throw a call to pending() in the top of an unfinished
> RSpec example and stop it from failing the build.
> Is there a similar way to do such a thing with good ole' cucumber?
>
> cheers,
>
I love the way I can throw a call to pending() in the top of an
unfinished RSpec example and stop it from failing the build.
Is there a similar way to do such a thing with good ole' cucumber?
cheers,
Matt
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://songkick.com
In case you wondered: The opinions ex
Please post bugs to http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com.
Thanks,
David
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, aidy lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If a backslash is put into a story runner scenario
>
> Scenario: Message is sent
>Given an order has been created
>When I goto the purchased
Hi,
If a backslash is put into a story runner scenario
Scenario: Message is sent
Given an order has been created
When I goto the purchased screen
And something with a \ breaks it
then this exception is created
c:/ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.4/lib/spec/story/world.rb:63:i
On 9 Sep 2008, at 14:54, Ashley Moran wrote:
On 8 Sep 2008, at 17:21, Jonathan Linowes wrote:
Here's one example: lets say my app is a specialized CMS, where
account owners can setup their own projects, pages and forms. I'd
like to run scenarios against setups that users have created.
T
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2008, at 13:28, Dan North wrote:
>
>> I know a while back Google used to request python skills when they were
>> hiring java folks. They didn't actually need python to do their job - it
>> just meant they attracted t
On 8 Sep 2008, at 17:21, Jonathan Linowes wrote:
Here's one example: lets say my app is a specialized CMS, where
account owners can setup their own projects, pages and forms. I'd
like to run scenarios against setups that users have created.
Thinking further, wouldn't it be neat to make thi
On 9 Sep 2008, at 13:28, Dan North wrote:
I know a while back Google used to request python skills when they
were hiring java folks. They didn't actually need python to do their
job - it just meant they attracted the kind of developers who
venture outside their regular programming world, wh
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Dan North <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jim.
>
> I guess I'm not a purist then - that looks fine to me, and it's probably
> something I would consider doing too.
>
> The thing to bear in mind is that there is magic going on when you run
> steps. Each step in a scen
I know a while back Google used to request python skills when they were
hiring java folks. They didn't actually need python to do their job - it
just meant they attracted the kind of developers who venture outside their
regular programming world, which is what they were really after. Mind you
they
Hi Jim.
I guess I'm not a purist then - that looks fine to me, and it's probably
something I would consider doing too.
The thing to bear in mind is that there is magic going on when you run
steps. Each step in a scenario is run in the context of the same object
instance (which you don't get to se
43 matches
Mail list logo
