Re: [rspec-users] [ANN] rspec 1.2.8 Released

David Chelimsky wrote: rspec version 1.2.8 has been released! * * * * * Behaviour Driven Development for Ruby. Changes: ### Version 1.2.8 / 2008-07-16 * enhancements * better messages for

[rspec-users] [ANN] rspec 1.2.8 Released

rspec version 1.2.8 has been released! * * * * * Behaviour Driven Development for Ruby. Changes: ### Version 1.2.8 / 2008-07-16 * enhancements * better messages for should[_not] be_nil (Cha

Re: [rspec-users] noob question (trying to understand view specs vs webrat and cucumber)...

On 16 Jul 2009, at 17:28, internetchris wrote: Very nice the ability to see your workflow helps me a ton. I guess I needed to see what other developers did. I have a project that I started, but then quit until I nailed down the testing. I will have to catch up on the code I have already wri

Re: [rspec-users] Should deleting code require failing specs?

On 15 Jul 2009, at 23:03, Adam Anderson wrote: Sometimes when features are asked to be removed it doesn't make sense to specify that they shouldn't be there. It seems to me that removing something from a tested app should not entail writing a failing spec for that change. I'm curious if pe

Re: [rspec-users] ArgumentError during rake specs

$ gem q -rn rails | grep ^rails* rails (2.3.2) What's 2.3.3? On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Marc Chung wrote: > David, > > Thank you, that did it. > > I vendored rails-2.3.2 and all the specs started working again.  I > tried it out with 2.3.3, but I ran into a single failing spec > (SystemSta

Re: [rspec-users] ArgumentError during rake specs

David, Thank you, that did it. I vendored rails-2.3.2 and all the specs started working again. I tried it out with 2.3.3, but I ran into a single failing spec (SystemStackError: stack level too deep). I'm good with 2.3.2. -Marc On Jul 16, 5:54 am, David Chelimsky wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 20

Re: [rspec-users] Should deleting code require failing specs?

When something small is removed for a good reason (e.g. it causes a bug) I sometimes find it necessary to test that it is not there. This is especially important in a case where most programmers might look at a line of code and think "Hmm, I should add x to this method in order to make it work" but

Re: [rspec-users] noob question (trying to understand view specs vs webrat and cucumber)...

Very nice the ability to see your workflow helps me a ton. I guess I needed to see what other developers did. I have a project that I started, but then quit until I nailed down the testing. I will have to catch up on the code I have already written, but I'm grasping the cucumber and rspec corre

Re: [rspec-users] Should deleting code require failing specs?

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Adam Anderson wrote: > Sometimes when features are asked to be removed it doesn't make sense to > specify that they shouldn't be there. It seems to me that removing something > from a tested app should not entail writing a failing spec for that change. > I'm curious

Re: [rspec-users] ArgumentError during rake specs

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Marc Chung wrote: > Hello, > > On a recently setup machine, a freshly checked out project started to > fail in the strangest way. When executing 'rake spec', all the specs > would fail because of the same ArgumentError: > > "wrong number of arguments (0 for 1)" > >

[rspec-users] ArgumentError during rake specs

Hello, On a recently setup machine, a freshly checked out project started to fail in the strangest way. When executing 'rake spec', all the specs would fail because of the same ArgumentError: "wrong number of arguments (0 for 1)" This gist contains the backtrace of a single failing test: http://