> And when it did there was a lot more in the way of methods added to
> Kernel, and that's one of the reasons I avoided RSpec back then, way
> too much Heisenberg effect.
>
> With the current design, there's very little added to all Ruby
> objects, just Kernel#should and Kernel#should_not and that
I am having a problem with my controller tests that include
ActionMailer. The tests work for the model test, e.g. I have a
UserNotifier model that sends account activation e-mails and the
spec's work fine. When I run the UsersController spec's that test
some of the same functionality (e.g. uses t
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:53 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:33 AM, rogerdpack
> wrote:
>>
>> It is somewhat surprising to me, as a newbie, to have to assert
>> a.should be_a(Hash)
>>
>> That extra space in there feels awkward.
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> allow for constructs
On Nov 29, 2009, at 6:33 am, rogerdpack wrote:
> It is somewhat surprising to me, as a newbie, to have to assert
> a.should be_a(Hash)
Hi Roger
Once you see the matcher (ie be_a) as something that returns a matcher object,
it makes a lot more sense. My brain is now wired to give much more wei
2009/11/27 Ben Mabey
> Andrew Premdas wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a rails application whose specs run on about eight different boxes,
>> but I can't get them to work on my integration server. The bit thats
>> breaking concerns some modules that I have in spec/support/modules which are
>> loa
