The spec
it "should expose a newly created logo as @logo" do
Logo.should_receive(:new).with({'these' =>
'params'}).and_return(mock_logo(:save =>
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:17 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
Hi Scott,
Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
confused still is that it seems like, a
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:17 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
Hi Scott,
Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
confused still is that it seems like, a
> Why don't we have a partial mock which will raise an error (or at
> least a warning) when stubbing an object who's class doesn't
> respond_to? the method given? I feel like this sort of simple
> dependency has been brought up 1000 times on the list before, but
> never been explicitly stated.
>
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:14 AM, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
Hi Scott,
Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
confused still is that it seems like, at least if your system is
starting to get larger, you'd really *want* your fa
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
>
>> Hi Scott,
>> Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
>> confused still is that it seems like, at least if your system is
>> starting to get
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
Hi Scott,
Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
confused still is that it seems like, at least if your system is
starting to get larger, you'd really *want* your fast unit test to
help
you catch API changes like t
Hi Scott,
Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
confused still is that it seems like, at least if your system is
starting to get larger, you'd really *want* your fast unit test to help
you catch API changes like this to help you make updates faster.
Having to run a
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Alex Rudyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have this code
>
> response.should render_template(:my_messages)
>
> It returns true also if :messages template rendered. I am confused, is this
> a bug or expected behavior?
Docs say use strings:
http://rspec.rubyforge.o
I have this code
response.should render_template(:my_messages)
It returns true also if :messages template rendered. I am confused, is
this a bug or expected behavior?
Alex
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/
On Oct 30, 2008, at 1:02 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
Hello RSpec folks,
I've only been introduced to the world of mock objects since Wednesday
of last week, so go easy on me if I come off as ignorant. :P
So, I'm a big fan of testing, especially since it has really helped to
do refactoring in the p
Hello RSpec folks,
I've only been introduced to the world of mock objects since Wednesday
of last week, so go easy on me if I come off as ignorant. :P
So, I'm a big fan of testing, especially since it has really helped to
do refactoring in the past. But, I'm running into an issue that I'm
hoping c
On Oct 29, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Cameron Booth wrote:
Hi all,
So my potentially crazy but I think good idea right now is to take
the factory_girl gem and adapt it to generate stubbed models instead
of actual ActiveRecord objects that get saved to the DB. My main
reasoning there is that I li
Hi Alsak,
2008/10/27 Aslak Hellesøy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What version/revision?
I am on 0.1.7; I guess I need to upgrade. If this is the case, will I
need to use the Trunk or is there a gem?
Thanks
Aidy
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyf
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:02 PM, aslak hellesoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:32 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Ashley Moran
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 27, 2008, at 5:20 pm, Pat Maddox wrote:
> >>
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:04 PM, DyingToLearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What about the idea of running it on machines that are as close to
> production as possible? So if my production machine is a SliceHost VPS
> with 256MB RAM, Nginx, and 3 Mongrels, then I should be running these
> tests on
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I get a 404 here following the expectations page[1] to the RDoc[2]. Don't
> know who maintains this - is it a known problem?
It is now :)
If you go to http://rspec.info, you'll see links to the rdoc where it
has mo
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Cameron Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I think I may have partly found my own answer.
>
> Looking at this gist http://gist.github.com/14050 by Andy Freeman, it seems
> to do much of what I'm looking for right now (thanks, awesome!!).
>
> But playin
Let's see, I want to spec the :conditions args to make sure the right
args is passed to the query.
Product.find(:all,
:conditions => ["inte_no = ? and vaat_id_type_statut_pcpa = ?",
inte_no, 7],
:limit => 2,
:order => "trns_dt_appl_prod desc")
Product.should_receive(:find).with
Hi
I get a 404 here following the expectations page[1] to the RDoc[2].
Don't know who maintains this - is it a known problem?
Ashley
[1] http://rspec.info/documentation/expectations.html
[2] http://rspec.info/rdoc/index.html
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://aviewfromafar.net/
__
Hi,
I have different projects with features related to those projects in
different folders
/project_1
/project_2
/steps
The steps cover both projects
How do I get Cucumber to require all features within both the projects
folders and include the common steps?
Thanks
Aidy
___
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 15:54 +0100, Juanma Cervera wrote:
> I have a problem trying to use cucumber with webrat.
> I thought I could use the gems versions of rspec, rspec-rails, cucumber
> and webrat, in fact I think that I could manage to do it two weeks ago,
> but now that I updated the versions
I forgot to add that until there is a new way to handle the role that
controllers currently are responsible for, I would probably teach someone
how to write good controllers and controller examples. I would also allow
them to experience the pain that comes with trying to write bloated
controller ac
On Oct 28, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Lenny Marks wrote:
I'm not familiar enough with the rspec code to get to the bottom
of this, but I did enough drilling to find its related to the new
backtrace based strategy for Spec::Runner::SpecParser#spec_name_for
(file, line_number). Putting a print sta
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you do end-to-end acceptance testing with Selenium, I think it
> should be run against a production environment. Not THE production
> environment, mind you, but simply a new Rails app running with
> RAILS_ENV=production.
Hi everybody,
New to the list, so apologies if this has been answered elsewhere, but
I didn't find it. I'm trying to build up a plugin of useful rspec
macros for rails development, eg. things like:
it_should_return_success
it_should_redirect_to { some_url }
I'm basing my ideas off of some
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Juanma Cervera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have a problem trying to use cucumber with webrat.
> I thought I could use the gems versions of rspec, rspec-rails, cucumber
> and webrat, in fact I think that I could manage to do it two weeks ago,
> but now
"David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What's the consensus here then, controller specs yay or nay?
>>
>> 1 nay from Pat
>
> I think the nay from Pat was conditional, as it should be.
>
> I think the answer is: if you have to ask, then you should use them :)
> Otherwise, don't use them w
Nick Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2008-10-28, at 09:09, Cameron Booth wrote:
>> describe User do
>> it_should_validate_presence_of :name
>> end
>>
>> I can get it working if I pass in User as an argument:
>>
>> describe User do
>> it_should_validate_presence_of User, :name
>> end
>
Hi again,
I think I may have partly found my own answer.
Looking at this gist http://gist.github.com/14050 by Andy Freeman, it seems
to do much of what I'm looking for right now (thanks, awesome!!).
But playing around with it a bit, calling self.described_type which I
thought would return the cl
On Oct 28, 2008, at 5:08 pm, Pat Maddox wrote:
When you do end-to-end acceptance testing with Selenium, I think it
should be run against a production environment. Not THE production
environment, mind you, but simply a new Rails app running with
RAILS_ENV=production. Also, transactional fixtur
Cameron Booth wrote:
Hi all,
So my potentially crazy but I think good idea right now is to take the
factory_girl gem and adapt it to generate stubbed models instead of
actual ActiveRecord objects that get saved to the DB. My main
reasoning there is that I like the syntax they've set up and so
On Oct 28, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Cameron Booth wrote:
Hi everybody,
New to the list, so apologies if this has been answered elsewhere,
but I didn't find it. I'm trying to build up a plugin of useful
rspec macros for rails development, eg. things like:
it_should_return_success
it_should_redir
Jonathan Linowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Oct 22, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
>> I think any app with a rich domain model benefits from a service layer
>> that uses that model. When building Rails apps, stuff is relatively
>> simple and the controllers *are* the service layer.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Lenny Marks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ooops. I meant the -l option not -n.
>
> It seems that '-l' command line option for rspec stopped working as of rspec
> 1.1.3. I think this may be related to why I can't get NetBeans to run
> focussed specs anymore. Does this
Part of the testing harness on one of our projects:
module Spec::Example::ExampleGroupMethods
def model
self.described_type.to_s.underscore
end
def should_require(*attrs)
raise "should require needs at least one attribute" if attrs.empty?
model = model()
attrs.each do |attr
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:32 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think the answer is: if you have to ask, then you should use them :)
> Otherwise, don't use them when you feel confident that you don't need
> them.
Or use them, but don't knock yourself out trying to keep them perfe
I agree. I have seen way too many times selenium tests are OK but bugs
appear in production. Not only should we run selenium tests against
production environment, but also they should be run on a production like
environment, such as, same OS, same setting (behind Apache, or whatever HTTP
servers, e
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Lenny Marks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Ooops. I meant the -l option not -n.
>>
>> It seems that '-l' command line option for rspec stopped working as of
>> rspec 1.1.3.
>
>
> It's been
Hi everybody,
David and Pat, thanks for the tip on using "described_type" to access the
model class. I actually figured that one out like 10 minutes after sending
the email. 2 learnings there, first, sometimes explaining the problem helps
solve the problem, and second, maybe I should sit on those
It seems that '-n' command line option for rspec stopped working as of
rspec 1.1.3. I think this may be related to why I can't get NetBeans
to run focussed specs anymore. Does this work for others? I'm using
jruby but I don't think that's the issue.
http://ruby.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Nick Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-10-28, at 09:09, Cameron Booth wrote:
>
>> describe User do
>> it_should_validate_presence_of :name
>> end
>>
>> I can get it working if I pass in User as an argument:
>>
>> describe User do
>> it_should_validate
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:32 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Ashley Moran
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2008, at 5:20 pm, Pat Maddox wrote:
>>
>>> When it comes to controllers specs, mocks provide the most value by
>>> isolating fro
One thing that bothers me about a 'staging' or 'production_test' environment
is simply the value of Rails.env. That should really == 'production', it
seems to me, but that's not always practical.
///ark
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Cameron Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> New to the list, so apologies if this has been answered elsewhere, but I
> didn't find it. I'm trying to build up a plugin of useful rspec macros for
> rails development, eg. things like:
>
> it_should_ret
aslak hellesoy wrote:
> I recommend running against a production-LIKE environment. In Rails
> you can create a production_test environment that you make as close to
> your production environment as possible, for example by running
> against a production_test database that contains a dump of your
>
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Lenny Marks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ooops. I meant the -l option not -n.
>
> It seems that '-l' command line option for rspec stopped working as of
> rspec 1.1.3.
It's been working for me. I wrote a Vim script that runs the current spec
(in whatever window
"Cameron Booth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a way to access the class itself that I'm missing?
described_type
Pat
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:33 PM, aidy lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am having a problem with my Cucumber step FIT-like tables.
>
> This is my scenario
>
> Scenario: Filter by new files added
>Given a database update that creates an ExpiryDate that is within 30
> days
>And a
Controllers are such a funny thing. Right now they are necessary evil. Once
you start feeling pain with controllers you start changing your thinking.
Somehow everyone who starts learning Rails ends up with bloated controllers
even if they've read all of the posts and articles on "skinny
controllers
Pat Maddox wrote:
When you do end-to-end acceptance testing with Selenium, I think it
should be run against a production environment. Not THE production
environment, mind you, but simply a new Rails app running with
RAILS_ENV=production. Also, transactional fixtures should be turned
off. This
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2008, at 5:20 pm, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
>> When it comes to controllers specs, mocks provide the most value by
>> isolating from the model and db - the specs run faster, and you don't
>> have to worry about model
On Oct 27, 2008, at 5:20 pm, Pat Maddox wrote:
When it comes to controllers specs, mocks provide the most value by
isolating from the model and db - the specs run faster, and you don't
have to worry about model validations. But if you minimize controller
logic, you can write acceptance tests t
On Oct 28, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Lenny Marks wrote:
I'm not familiar enough with the rspec code to get to the bottom of
this, but I did enough drilling to find its related to the new
backtrace based strategy for Spec::Runner::SpecParser#spec_name_for
(file, line_number). Putting a print stat
On 2008-10-28, at 09:09, Cameron Booth wrote:
describe User do
it_should_validate_presence_of :name
end
I can get it working if I pass in User as an argument:
describe User do
it_should_validate_presence_of User, :name
end
Hi Cameron. I haven't played with RSpec's internals at all, but
Hi all,
So my potentially crazy but I think good idea right now is to take the
factory_girl gem and adapt it to generate stubbed models instead of actual
ActiveRecord objects that get saved to the DB. My main reasoning there is
that I like the syntax they've set up and some of the tools under the
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you do end-to-end acceptance testing with Selenium, I think it
> should be run against a production environment. Not THE production
> environment, mind you, but simply a new Rails app running with
> RAILS_ENV=production.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you do end-to-end acceptance testing with Selenium, I think it
> should be run against a production environment. Not THE production
> environment, mind you, but simply a new Rails app running with
> RAILS_ENV=production
58 matches
Mail list logo
