oren wrote:
I am reading the post by Fowler, 'Ruby at ThoughtWorks'.
http://martinfowler.com/articl/rubyAtThoughtWorks.html#WasRubyTheRightChoice
He talks about testing with activerecord:
"Right at the beginning of our use of Ruby, there was a debate on how
best to organize testing in the prese
I am reading the post by Fowler, 'Ruby at ThoughtWorks'.
http://martinfowler.com/articl/rubyAtThoughtWorks.html#WasRubyTheRightChoice
He talks about testing with activerecord:
"Right at the beginning of our use of Ruby, there was a debate on how
best to organize testing in the presence of the Act
Thank you so much Stephen.
I am ruby and rails beginner (created a simple site so far) that
decided to
dive into rspec and I feel the pains you described.
I decided to start new rails app and do it with rspec (and to only
test my models).
Is there a github project with rspec code that test the m
Thank you so much Stephen.
I am ruby and rails beginner (created a simple site so far) that
decided to
dive into rspec and I feel the pains you described.
I decided to start new rails app and do it with rspec (and to only
test my models).
is there a github project with rspec code that test the mo
Thank you so much Stephen.
I am ruby and rails beginner (created a simple site so far) that
decided to
dive into rspec and I feel the pains you described.
I decided to start new rails app and do it with rspec (and to only
test my models).
Is there a github project with rspec code that test the m
test
On Jun 12, 9:41 am, Stephen Eley wrote:
> Ben and Rick,
>
> Thanks very much to both of you for the encouraging responses. Your
> reply, Ben, came just in time as I was starting to wonder if I had
> made a complete and irrevocable ass of myself.
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Ben Mab
David Chelimsky-2 wrote:
>
> That is by design. RSpec is about spec'ing things in isolation,
> whereas cucumber is about spec'ing things end to end. RSpec controller
> specs are about *controllers*, not views, so the presence and/or
> validity of a view should not impact the controller spec.
>
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Zhenning Guan wrote:
> one more question.
> Forecast.stub!(:new).and_return(@forecast)
> Forecast.should_receive(:new).with(anything()).and_return(@forecast)
>
> what's the different between stub! and should_receive ?
Read this: http://rspec.info/documentation/moc
one more question.
Forecast.stub!(:new).and_return(@forecast)
Forecast.should_receive(:new).with(anything()).and_return(@forecast)
what's the different between stub! and should_receive ?
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
rspec-users mailing
David Chelimsky wrote:
clear, thank you David
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:14 AM, mBread wrote:
> I've got this test:
>
> describe LoginController do
> describe "GET index" do
> it "should be successful" do
> get 'index'
> response.should be_success
> end
> end
> end
>
> which passes, but a cucumber test fails on trying t
I've got this test:
describe LoginController do
describe "GET index" do
it "should be successful" do
get 'index'
response.should be_success
end
end
end
which passes, but a cucumber test fails on trying to get the index for
LoginController, with the message:
No action r
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Zhenning Guan wrote:
> @weather = mock_model(Weather, :id => "1")
> @forecast = mock_model(Forecast, :weather => @weather, :save => true)
>
> what's the different between with :save => true or without it?
The hash submitted to mock_model sets up method stubs:
@we
@weather = mock_model(Weather, :id => "1")
@forecast = mock_model(Forecast, :weather => @weather, :save => true)
what's the different between with :save => true or without it?
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec
14 matches
Mail list logo
