On Jul 26, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Bruno Cardoso wrote:
> Thanks for the answers.
>
> What both solutions (from Ashley and David) do is not modify the BD in
> anyway, so nothing gets dropped and nothing is created. This resolves
> the problem but what if I want a clean installation in each test run?
On 26 Jul 2010, at 6:36 PM, Bruno Cardoso wrote:
> What both solutions (from Ashley and David) do is not modify the BD in
> anyway, so nothing gets dropped and nothing is created. This resolves
> the problem but what if I want a clean installation in each test run? Is
> there a way to keep my
Bruno Cardoso wrote:
> Thanks for the answers.
>
> What both solutions (from Ashley and David) do is not modify the BD in
> anyway, so nothing gets dropped and nothing is created. This resolves
> the problem but what if I want a clean installation in each test run? Is
> there a way to keep my "
OK.
On a Rails note, this seems to suggest that attributes are checked
from their accessors before the save, whereas I had assumed my
some_attribute accessor would not be called at all during
validation...
(Thank you David, this is one of the better groups I've lately
monitored, and a fine comple
Thanks for the answers.
What both solutions (from Ashley and David) do is not modify the BD in
anyway, so nothing gets dropped and nothing is created. This resolves
the problem but what if I want a clean installation in each test run? Is
there a way to keep my "schema_migrations" table or remov
On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Ashley Moran wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2010, at 5:12 pm, Bruno Cardoso wrote:
>
>> Not sure if this is a RSpec problem or Rails but I believe is more a
>> RSpec situation.
>>
>> What happens is that when I run my RSpecs tests all the BD is recreated,
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:12 AM, Bruno Cardoso wrote:
> Hi
>
> Not sure if this is a RSpec problem or Rails but I believe is more a
> RSpec situation.
>
> What happens is that when I run my RSpecs tests all the BD is recreated,
> including the "schema_migration" table, because of this I get a probl
On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Lille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> class B < ActiveRecord::Base
> belongs_to :a
> validates_numericality_of :some_attribute, :greater_than =>
> 0, :allow_blank=>true
>
> def some_attribute
> a.numeric_attr * read_attribute(:some_attribute)
> end
> ...
>
> If I creat
On Jul 26, 2010, at 5:12 pm, Bruno Cardoso wrote:
> Not sure if this is a RSpec problem or Rails but I believe is more a
> RSpec situation.
>
> What happens is that when I run my RSpecs tests all the BD is recreated,
>
> ...
>
> Anyone know how to resolve this?
Hi Bruno
Are you running `rake
On 2010-07-26 11:12 AM, Timo Rößner wrote:
Hey guys,
we just found out by accident that rspec seems to apply a pretty
confusing mechanism to ensure that a certain template is rendered.
To clarify, consider this standard controller spec:
# working
it 'GET edit' do
get :edit, :id =>
On Jul 26, 2010, at 3:44 pm, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
> Personally I wouldn't do this. It makes it harder for anybody coming to your
> project to understand what's going on, because they see this "contract 'foo'
> do" construct and don't know what it is unless they dig into your
> spec_helper.
El 26/07/2010, a las 15:52, nathanvda escribió:
> For test::unit there exists a solution: http://github.com/jm/skippy
> Is there a similar solution for Rspec?
> Or how do you guys solve this?
The way to do the "Skippy" thing under RSpec 2 will be filtering:
http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2010/06
Hi
Not sure if this is a RSpec problem or Rails but I believe is more a
RSpec situation.
What happens is that when I run my RSpecs tests all the BD is recreated,
including the "schema_migration" table, because of this I get a problem
saying:
You have 29 pending migrations:
20100628100855 Creat
Hi,
class B < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :a
validates_numericality_of :some_attribute, :greater_than =>
0, :allow_blank=>true
def some_attribute
a.numeric_attr * read_attribute(:some_attribute)
end
...
If I create an instance of my class B in rspec with factory_girl w.out
a pa
Hey guys,
we just found out by accident that rspec seems to apply a pretty
confusing mechanism to ensure that a certain template is rendered.
To clarify, consider this standard controller spec:
# working
it 'GET edit' do
get :edit, :id => '37'
response.should render_template(:edit)
Hi there,
i have two very specific questions. I am writing an application to
send sms-es. Now i would like to be able, somehow, to disable the part
of my tests that actually sends the sms-es.
My code is tested, but to actually test sending the sms-es, i need to
test the configuration. So it is nee
El 26/07/2010, a las 14:09, Ashley Moran escribió:
> The solution I'm playing with is to extract shared contract (ie shared
> example groups) that you can mix into a spec for a host class (eg User,
> Checklist) above to prove the feature (here collections) works, without
> reference to the impl
On Jul 26, 2010, at 8:55 am, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
> Seems to me that including the same shared example group twice in the same
> "describe" block is a bit of an abuse, to be honest. I don't think it was
> ever really intended to be used in that way.
You're right, it clearly wasn't intended
El 26/07/2010, a las 09:31, Ashley Moran escribió:
> I'm back again, and still on a quest to tame shared example to do my bidding.
> This time what I'm wondering is... is there any way to format shared example
> specdoc description output with data passed in with #let, or otherwise? eg:
> How
Hi again
As part of the refactoring I'm doing, I'm writing out quite a bit of
metaprogramming. The easiest way to prove constant lookup is working is to
create a new class in an example group, and use its name. But the scope of the
example group definition appears to be the containing module,
Hi
I'm back again, and still on a quest to tame shared example to do my bidding.
This time what I'm wondering is... is there any way to format shared example
specdoc description output with data passed in with #let, or otherwise? eg:
How do I get "1" and "2" into either of the placeholders h
21 matches
Mail list logo
