This looks a little funny in my phone. But what happens if you do this?
...
options = Options.new(argv)
puts "argv[0]: #{argv[0]}"
puts "argv[1]: #{argv[1]}"
...
Best regards
Morten
Sent from my iPhone
On 15/02/2012, at 19.26, Serguei Cambour wrote:
> I just tried to integrate a simple test
On Feb 15, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Serguei Cambour wrote:
> I just tried to integrate a simple test to check some options passed as
> argument to a class to be executed:
> [code]
> require 'spec_helper'
>
> module PropertyInjector
> describe Options do
>describe "#source folder option" do
>
On rereading, I see that you do parse the options using the parse! method,
so the answer is to use parse(argv) instead of parse!(argv).
The == vs eq() is probably irrelevant. Sorry to have brought it up.
As an aside, i would recommend using a gist with an actual working
(failing) examole, as that
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Serguei Cambour wrote:
> WHY the second argument is NIL if it WAS NOT before
> (path/to/some/folder)?
If you change this:
> options.export_folder.should == argv[1]
to this:
options.export_folder.should eq(argv[1])
You will see that you get the value that you've
I just tried to integrate a simple test to check some options passed as
argument to a class to be executed:
[code]
require 'spec_helper'
module PropertyInjector
describe Options do
describe "#source folder option" do
it "sets up a source folder" do
argv = %w{-e path/to/some/fol
Cathal Curtis wrote in post #1046554:
I found what I think is the answer to my question by chance while doing
some further searching on the web:
http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-capybara/browse_thread/thread/7b6c92e4c96c9135
Jonas Nicklas describes it as using the wrong tool for the job.
Capyb
