On Jul 17, 2010, at 1:18 PM, Costa Shapiro wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been thinking of how to express my idea in code, but since I've never
> been involved in RSpec development, I'd better have some feedback here first.
> The feature suggestion below applies to any controller-like code under spec,
On Jul 17, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Daniel Salmeron Amselem wrote:
> On Jul 17, 9:41 am, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 2010, at 8:09 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>> On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:29 AM, Daniel Salmeron Amselem wrote:
>>
Today I've been writing some tests for a new rails 3 app, but af
Thanks David, this was driving me crazy. In my opinion, I think will
be a great idea to add a new matcher to rspec-rails to do this kind of
comparison better than overriding == , and have total control of what
you want to test in each case. Anyways, thanks for helping me on this.
On Jul 17, 9:41 a
Hello,
I've been thinking of how to express my idea in code, but since I've never
been involved in RSpec development, I'd better have some feedback here
first.
The feature suggestion below applies to any controller-like code under spec,
i.e. a stateless module producing output or just altering its
On 17 Jul 2010, at 5:43 PM, doug livesey wrote:
> Please tell me they're doing *some*thing, as I'm using S3 storage, which
> would really slow my tests down if I just did nothing.
> I'm starting to think of all sorts of horrible solutions, like making the
> storage strategy dependent on the env
On 17 Jul 2010, at 5:58 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:
> You don't need to test Paperclip's ability to put files to S3
It depends on your confidence in Paperclip (s/Paperclip/X random library) and
the severity of problem it could cause if it doesn't work. To me, at least,
it's more a risk/value ju
On 17 Jul 2010, at 4:37 PM, doug livesey wrote:
> At the minute I'm chaining a load of should_receive calls on mock relation
> objects
I've found this can cause pain in so many ways:
* Your tests end up coupled to the database structure (as that's how most
associations are inferred)
* You're a
I was wary of taking an approach like that, as it feels a little like test
code bleeding into production code, but the sheer number of problems I'm
having trying another way tells me that I'm very inadvisedly swimming
against the stream, here.
So I think I'll rethink my strategy & try something mor
El 17/07/2010, a las 17:37, doug livesey escribió:
> Hi -- how are people speccing Rails 3 ActiveRecord queries?
> At the minute I'm chaining a load of should_receive calls on mock relation
> objects, but can't help thinking that there must be a more elegant way of
> going about it.
> Is there a b
One of the things that you learn after testing for a while is "what to
test." You don't need to test Paperclip's ability to put files to S3; that's
what Paperclip's internal tests are for. So what I do is this:
http://gist.github.com/479647
When I'm developing locally or testing, I just write fil
Interesting.
I'll give that a bash, too. I must admit, I tend to use the first approach,
but the second seems a little more true to the spirit of testing.
I can imagine that it might get rather involved when setting up the database
for even half-way complex queries, though.
I'll see how I get on wi
Hi -- I'm running into all sorts of difficulties trying to use paperclip
with cucumber and rspec.
Basically, I'm stubbing out paperclip calls with WebMock (I've adapted the
shoulda macro that uses FakeWeb to do this).
But every time I get things running smoothly, something else pops up to
screw t
On Jul 17, 2010, at 10:37 AM, doug livesey wrote:
> Hi -- how are people speccing Rails 3 ActiveRecord queries?
> At the minute I'm chaining a load of should_receive calls on mock relation
> objects, but can't help thinking that there must be a more elegant way of
> going about it.
> Is there a
Hi -- how are people speccing Rails 3 ActiveRecord queries?
At the minute I'm chaining a load of should_receive calls on mock relation
objects, but can't help thinking that there must be a more elegant way of
going about it.
Is there a best practice for this, yet?
Cheers,
Doug.
_
On Jul 17, 2010, at 8:09 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:29 AM, Daniel Salmeron Amselem wrote:
>
>> Today I've been writing some tests for a new rails 3 app, but after
>> reading the doc from http://rdoc.info/projects/rspec/rspec-expectations,
>> I still can't understand why
On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:29 AM, Daniel Salmeron Amselem wrote:
> Today I've been writing some tests for a new rails 3 app, but after
> reading the doc from http://rdoc.info/projects/rspec/rspec-expectations,
> I still can't understand why the test doesn't work. My setup is:
>
> rvm 0.1.41
> ruby 1.
Today I've been writing some tests for a new rails 3 app, but after
reading the doc from http://rdoc.info/projects/rspec/rspec-expectations,
I still can't understand why the test doesn't work. My setup is:
rvm 0.1.41
ruby 1.9.2dev (2010-07-11 revision 28618) [x86_64-darwin10.4.0] ->
ruby 1.9.2-rc2
17 matches
Mail list logo
