On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2008, at 15:58, Zach Dennis wrote:
>
>> I know the above example breaks the one assertion per test guideline
>> people strive to adhere to, but I think it is ok. If there are more
>> examples that should be used t
On 30 Oct 2008, at 13:46, David Chelimsky wrote:
I'd agree with this (in spite of my previous comments), and add to it.
One of the benefits of writing examples is that they actually help to
expose things that are growing complex. If it's hard to test, it's
probably hard to change.
Aslak made
On Oct 30, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Sebastian W. wrote:
No idea why you couldn't pass a flag for regression testing:
mock(Foo, :check_methods => true)
Scott
It seems to me this way, too - though I'm obviously biased. :)
It's true that a lot of the dynamic stuff could be problematic -
what if
t
On Oct 30, 2008, at 8:21 PM, Evan Dorn wrote:
I am having a very frustrating problem running specs on my current
project. When I run tests en masse with "rake spec" or with autotest,
it frequently quits without completing all the tests. It also
sometimes runs the tests in multiple batches, g
I am having a very frustrating problem running specs on my current
project. When I run tests en masse with "rake spec" or with autotest,
it frequently quits without completing all the tests. It also
sometimes runs the tests in multiple batches, giving more than one
result line for a single batch
> No idea why you couldn't pass a flag for regression testing:
>
> mock(Foo, :check_methods => true)
>
> Scott
It seems to me this way, too - though I'm obviously biased. :)
It's true that a lot of the dynamic stuff could be problematic - what if
the flag was only for checking methods directly
You're right, the behavior did change. Now when you have a
should_receive that shadows a previous stub, it returns or yields the
original value.
I don't know a way to turn off the yielding in the should_receive,
I'll look at putting something in. In the mean time, if you stub the
method again with
I'm in the process of trying to get updated to rspec-1.1.11(from
1.1.1). I have a couple of places where I was trying to verify that a
particular collaboration was made inside a transaction. My general
strategy was to start off using something like Transaction.stub!
(:execute).and_yield in a
On Oct 30, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Actually, I take back my previous comment. Where would you stub a
method on an object where the method *isn't* even loaded by further
(or previous) stubbing?
Any concrete examples come to mind?
How abo
On Oct 30, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Actually, I take back my previous comment. Where would you stub a
method on an object where the method *isn't* even loaded by further
(or previous) stubbing?
Any concrete examples come to mind?
How abo
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Actually, I take back my previous comment. Where would you stub a
>> method on an object where the method *isn't* even loaded by further
>> (or previous) stubbing?
>>
>> Any concr
Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 30 Oct 2008, at 15:58, Zach Dennis wrote:
>> I know the above example breaks the one assertion per test guideline
>> people strive to adhere to, but I think it is ok. If there are more
>> examples that should be used to make sure find_thingy works then
Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I take back my previous comment. Where would you stub a
> method on an object where the method *isn't* even loaded by further
> (or previous) stubbing?
>
> Any concrete examples come to mind?
How about if you haven't implemented that object ye
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Stephen Eley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:07 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> This is absolutely by design. If a step passes or fails after another
>> has failed, you have no way of knowing if it would still pass or fai
"David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:35, Pat Maddox wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Pat - are you going solo too?
>>>
>>> Nope, I'm trying to teach RSpec/BDD to
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:07 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is absolutely by design. If a step passes or fails after another
> has failed, you have no way of knowing if it would still pass or fail
> once the other one is passing. Cucumber reports the first problem in a
> s
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:02 PM, aidy lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a Given step that fails: For that Scenario the remaining
> Given's, When, and Then's are reported as being skipped, even though
> theses steps have been executed.
>
> Why I am not submitting this to Lighthouse,
Hi,
I have a Given step that fails: For that Scenario the remaining
Given's, When, and Then's are reported as being skipped, even though
theses steps have been executed.
Why I am not submitting this to Lighthouse, is that I believe, this
may be intentional design.
However, would it not be more i
On 30 Oct 2008, at 15:58, Zach Dennis wrote:
I know the above example breaks the one assertion per test guideline
people strive to adhere to, but I think it is ok. If there are more
examples that should be used to make sure find_thingy works then I'd
break out a separate describe block and
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Rémi Gagnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do agree, That's what we're gonna do. it was just an example.
> But what if we want to test find_thingy(in model spec) to make sure the
> :conditions is set properly?
You are probably more interested in the fact that fi
I do agree, That's what we're gonna do. it was just an example.
But what if we want to test find_thingy(in model spec) to make sure the
:conditions is set properly?
R
Pat Maddox wrote:
> Rémi Gagnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Product.should_receive(:find).with(:conditions =>
>> 'vaat_id_t
Rémi Gagnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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_
On 2008-10-30, at 10:56, Zach Dennis wrote:
Last night it seemed like the mailing list was playing catchup, as I
got a flood of emails from the past few days. Has anyone else seen
this?
Yup! When I checked my email this morning, I found 61 new messages
from the rspec-users ML.
___
On 2008-10-28, at 10:52, Rémi Gagnon wrote:
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
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last night it seemed like the mailing list was playing catchup, as I got a
> flood of emails from the past few days. Has anyone else seen this?
Yep. Right in the middle of trying to wrap up a chapter in the rspec book!
Ende
Last night it seemed like the mailing list was playing catchup, as I got a
flood of emails from the past few days. Has anyone else seen this?
--
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspe
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:46 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:35, Pat Maddox wrote:
> >
> >> Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>> Pat - are you going solo too?
> >>
> >> Nop
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Aslak made a good point earlier this thread with "don't write specs
>> just cuz," but perhaps this fact is sufficient "cuz" to motivate.
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> There's something else here (nothing to do with testing rails controller
Aslak made a good point earlier this thread with "don't write specs
just cuz," but perhaps this fact is sufficient "cuz" to motivate.
WDYT?
There's something else here (nothing to do with testing rails
controllers, but testing in general) about the psychological blockage
to working up the t
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:35, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
>> Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Pat - are you going solo too?
>>
>> Nope, I'm trying to teach RSpec/BDD to an organization that currently
>> doesn't use it and has
I'd rather have it be a known problem, but a consistent problem, then
a partially solved problem that will inevitably cause more pain that
it does today :)
+1
This is one of the down-sides of working in a dynamic language. We
have to suck it up, IMO.
Now, here's what I don't understand: sup
On 27 Oct 2008, at 16:35, Pat Maddox wrote:
Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pat - are you going solo too?
Nope, I'm trying to teach RSpec/BDD to an organization that currently
doesn't use it and has 0% test coverage. It's interesting, to say the
least. They're good devs, but even so
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:43 AM, aidy lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
>
Changelog: http://
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:39 PM, aidy lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 feature
Thanks for your reply, I did move the code to before
before(:each) do
Logo.stub!(:new).and_return(mock_logo(:save => true, :company= => nil))
end
2008/10/30 Hans de Graaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 14:47 +0800, Leon Du wrote:
> > The spec
> >
> ---
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 14:47 +0800, Leon Du wrote:
> The spec
>
> it "should expose a newly created logo as @logo" do
> Logo.should_receive(:new)
Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pat - are you going solo too?
Nope, I'm trying to teach RSpec/BDD to an organization that currently
doesn't use it and has 0% test coverage. It's interesting, to say the
least. They're good devs, but even so, the effects of not writing tests
first (or ev
37 matches
Mail list logo
