I have a series of tests I want to automate, which involve running
shell scripts in a live environment (i.e. nothing mocked or
stubbed), and then verifying the state of the system. I thought that,
even though it doesn't fit the classic definition of testing, RSpec
would still be a handy way to
On 27 Apr 2010, at 10:36, Martin DeMello wrote:
I have a series of tests I want to automate, which involve running
shell scripts in a live environment (i.e. nothing mocked or
stubbed), and then verifying the state of the system. I thought that,
even though it doesn't fit the classic definition
On Apr 26, 2010, at 4:29 PM, John Feminella wrote:
hi guys,
I'm trying to be diligent about checking my `rake` tasks with RSpec
tests, but in the process of feeling my way around I seem to have hit
a wall. I've got a really simple RSpec test that looks like this:
# ./test/meta_spec.rb
There is a general rule of thumb that says test your code,
not everybody else's. This suggests that you don't really
need to be testing this. Any reason you feel the need to?
The specs task is generated programmatically based on several
initial conditions, and eventually it will become more
My other contribution to this thread is that if your code is tested primarily
via Cucumber, you probably have SRP violations all over the place. That's what
I've noticed in my own code, anyway.
The tricky thing is that SRP violations are not necessarily crippling,
particularly in Rails apps
Hello,
I am following the example in the Rspec book, starting page 372, where a
controller's create message is spec'd.
it creates a new message do
Message.should_receive(:new).with(text=aquickbrown
fox )
post :create, :message = { text = a quick brown fox }
end
When i run
On Apr 27, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Andrei Erdoss wrote:
Hello,
I am following the example in the Rspec book, starting page 372, where a
controller's create message is spec'd.
it creates a new message do
Message.should_receive(:new).with(text=aquickbrown
fox )
post
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, David Chelimsky dchelim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Andrei Erdoss erd...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for the fast response. What's the best way to handle the scenario
described with Rails 3, Rspec 2?
touch messages/create.html.haml :)
Hi everyone,
I still am on my quest to understand Rspec, and I have a few new questions...
If I have a complex method which calls other methods, say something like:
-
class Foo
def complex_method
setup
setup_something_else
mini_method1
mini_method2
Great! Thanks.
Will Rspec 2 provide isolation from view templates or is this a design
change?
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:12 PM, David Chelimsky dchelim...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, David Chelimsky dchelim...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Andrei
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Andrei Erdoss erd...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for the fast response. What's the best way to handle the scenario
described with Rails 3, Rspec 2?
touch messages/create.html.haml :)
Keep in mind that once rails 3 and rspec 2 go final, we'll have this
worked
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Patrick J. Collins
patr...@collinatorstudios.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
I still am on my quest to understand Rspec, and I have a few new questions...
If I have a complex method which calls other methods, say something like:
-
class Foo
def
Hi,
What if they didn't? Is there a different way you could design this so
that the interesting bits (The small methods) didn't depend so much on
the other bits around them?
Well this is for importing vCards...
http://gist.github.com/381384
So for example, I would like to just make a spec
On Apr 27, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Andrei Erdoss wrote:
Great! Thanks.
Will Rspec 2 provide isolation from view templates or is this a design
change?
There will be some sort of view isolation, but the jury is out on how it will
work. I'm hopeful it will feel exactly like it does in
On Apr 27, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Andrei Erdoss wrote:
Hello,
I also tried testing for the flash notice being set, but it's not working.
it sets a flash[:notice] message do
post :create
flash[:notice].should == The message was saved successfully.
end
this is the line in the
I have some specs that use controller_name because of namespaced
temporary controllers in my specs. In rspec-rails2 I'm told that
controller_name is not a valid method. Is there a workaround for this?
Thanks,
Steve
___
rspec-users mailing list
Single responsibility Principle
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Curtis Schofield
curtis.schofi...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally SRP violations are making my work hell right now on a 2 year old
rails system. My first concern when re-factoring is putting test in place -
there isn't much
Personally SRP violations are making my work hell right now on a 2 year old
rails system. My first concern when re-factoring is putting test in place -
there isn't much coverage when i started.
I've been doing that for the past 2 weeks and I've found that cucumber is
doing well for getting higher
I am trying to run a test for a controller with the spec command
like this: spec spec/controllers/account_controller_spec.rb and this
is the result:
damse...@logicmail$ spec spec/controllers/accounts_controller_spec.rb
/Users/damselem/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.2-h...@rails3/gems/rspec-
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Steve vertebr...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some specs that use controller_name because of namespaced
temporary controllers in my specs. In rspec-rails2 I'm told that
controller_name is not a valid method. Is there a workaround for this?
Try:
describe blah de
On Apr 23, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Daniel Salmeron Amselem wrote:
I am trying to run a test for a controller with the spec command
like this: spec spec/controllers/account_controller_spec.rb and this
is the result:
damse...@logicmail$ spec spec/controllers/accounts_controller_spec.rb
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Patrick J. Collins
patr...@collinatorstudios.com wrote:
Hi,
What if they didn't? Is there a different way you could design this so
that the interesting bits (The small methods) didn't depend so much on
the other bits around them?
Well this is for importing
On 27 Apr 2010, at 22:51, Patrick J. Collins wrote:
Hi,
What if they didn't? Is there a different way you could design this
so
that the interesting bits (The small methods) didn't depend so much
on
the other bits around them?
Well this is for importing vCards...
Also, you should directly test the implementation of the Vcard outside of
this spec (i.e. in it's own spec)
Could you explain what you mean by that?
Patrick J. Collins
http://collinatorstudios.com
___
rspec-users mailing list
Based on the above I think the Vcard is a good opportunity for a mock.
That would most likely imply that you create the Vcard somewhere else
and pass it into this method. Also, you should directly test the
Ok, and regarding mocking-- Something that is still very unclear to me is how
can I
If something in the code you are testing depends on the return value
of a method then you would use a stub. e.g.:
foo = mock(Foo)
foo.stub!(:slave_method).and_return(foo)
However, in some cases what matters is not what the method returns but
the fact that slave_method gets called. i.e.:
If something in the code you are testing depends on the return value
of a method then you would use a stub. e.g.:
Right, but what I am asking is--- if all of my slave methods are relying on
stored card data from the @card instance variable-- how is the best way to
have access to the variable
I am using this line in my Gemfile: gem rspec-rails, :git = git://
github.com/rspec/rspec-rails.git
which installs the rspec-rails-2.0.0.beta.7
I tried beta.8 but I get an error: Rspec is not missing constant Matchers!
(ArgumentError)
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM, David Chelimsky
On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:19 PM, Andrei Erdoss wrote:
I am using this line in my Gemfile: gem rspec-rails, :git =
git://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails.git
which installs the rspec-rails-2.0.0.beta.7
I released beta.8 yesterday, so if you bundle install you should get the
update. I just
29 matches
Mail list logo
