And notice that the car's red. Not ruby red, but then rubies usually aren't
really the shade of red that most people think they should be.
Al
- Original Message
From: Daniel Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rspec-users@rubyforge.org
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 2:39:46 PM
Subject: [rspec
method calls super.
Al
- Original Message
From: Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rspec-users
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 1:51:51 PM
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] spec'ing calls to super (or other Ruby keywords)
On May 3, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Al Chou wrote:
In the particular ca
In the particular case of super, another approach, though perhaps not using the
spec framework, would be to assert (a la Test::Unit) that your class is a
subclass of the intended superclass. To be truly anal, also assert that the
superclass has a method with the same name as the subclass's meth
You can always spider the site (e.g., use Web Site Sucker on the Mac).
Depending on which spider utility you use, you may have to do some manual
editing afterward; Web Site Sucker, for instance, doesn't rewrite the absolute
path to the CSS stylesheet into relative paths, which means that you do
That's correct, I'm still on 1.0.8. Sorry for forgetting to mention that. I'm
trying to keep some semblance of sanity as to knowing what versions of code I'm
using, given how scattered I am about a subset of it (viz., Substruct).
Al
- Original Message
From: David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PR
Uh, shouldn't they both work? I use TRUE (and FALSE) because I like the facts
that a) they stand out typographically and b) they are Ruby constants. I can't
believe the case of the letters matters, unless you are doing something
meta-programmingy rather than just passing the value through to
Cool, I'll use mock for this purpose in the future!
Al
- Original Message
From: Tom Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rspec-users
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 7:07:55 AM
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] Does mock_model's :null_object option work?
On 5 Dec 2007, at 14:5
Please understand in the following that I am making relatively minor changes
to legacy (non-TDD/BDD) code in Substruct and don't have the time to refactor
nicely right now. I'm just trying to get past the untested/un-speced cruft
quickly to write the spec for my new code, so I'm looking for ex
params not available for controller specs?
On 4.12.2007, at 23.11, Al Chou wrote:
> I think Jarkko is saying that no spec should have been written for
> the code I was trying to fix/change. I'm not sure I would agree
> that BDD/RSpec is an inappropriate tool for documenting w
From: David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rspec-users
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 12:18:58 PM
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] params not available for controller specs?
On Dec 4, 2007 2:09 PM, Al Chou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I get what you're saying, but I was try
al Message
From: Jarkko Laine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rspec-users
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 10:09:01 AM
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] params not available for controller specs?
On 4.12.2007, at 18.19, Al Chou wrote:
> Going back to my original message, I have the following at the
s?
On 4.12.2007, at 17.13, Al Chou wrote:
> Ah, thanks! That was a breakthrough. My mock object "ids_string"
> isn't receiving the method calls I expect (even though the code
> under test actually does what I want it to do and works correctly),
> but at least I&
From: Daniel Tenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rspec-users
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 1:56:25 AM
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] params not available for controller specs?
Try:
get :download, :ids => ids_string
You need the ":" in front of the action name.
Daniel
On 4 Dec 2
arkko Laine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rspec-users
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 12:33:11 AM
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] params not available for controller specs?
On 4.12.2007, at 10.17, Al Chou wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> I'm trying to write a spec for a controller method that starts
Hi, all,
I'm trying to write a spec for a controller method that starts out:
def download
@orders = Order.find( params[:ids] )
...
and started writing a spec that set params[:ids] to a mock. I was surprised to
discover that controller specs (at least in RSpec 1.0.8) don't offer the
nfirming that a model instance was correctly
created from POST params
On 20.11.2007, at 8.00, Al Chou wrote:
> What I am trying to demonstrate to myself is that the addition of a
> boolean "is_business_address" column to the order_addresses table
> via a migration allows line
I'm wondering whether I'm wasting my time trying to verify that an addition
I've made to legacy code is in fact setting a new attribute on a model.
Substruct's (http://dev.subimage.com/projects/substruct) OrderHelper contains
this method:
1def create_order_from_post
2 @use_se
Glad that was helpful!
Al
- Original Message
From: Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rspec-users
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:01:11 PM
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] How do you specify a rubygem is being required?
On Oct 25, 2007, at 3:08 am, Al Chou wrote:
> I be
RubyGems does indeed muck with the "require" method.
I believe the current version uses the "gem" method and deprecates the
"require" method. Rails warns me about something to that effect whenever I run
script/server, anyway.
Not that I seem to have given you any real help with your spec quest
19 matches
Mail list logo
