7/07, Luis Lavena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/07, Christopher D. Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I recently post on my blog about setting up a Rails environment with
> RSpec
> > in Windows, and someone left a comment saying that it doesn't work in
&
te_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:27:in
`gem_original_requi
re': no such file to load -- active_resource (MissingSourceFile)
from /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:27:in
`requi
re'
from /cygdrive/c/Documents and Settings/Christopher D.
Pratt/test/
wrote:
>
> This happens if you have it blocks with no name. RSpec tries to
> generate names based on the code inside, but with dry run it isn't
> executed, so it can't.
>
> But maybe you don't have empty it blocks? I'm just guessing here...
>
> Aslak
>
I went ahead and moved to the trunk versions of RSpec and Spec:Rails because
I wanted to try out the new Story Runner feature. However, when I tried to
do "rake spec:doc", I got the following:
AccountController
- NO NAME (Because of --dry-run)
AccountHelper
- NO NAME (Because of --dry-run)
User
I'm not really sure about your error, so hopefully someone more skilled than
me can help you with that.
As far as the "mock issue" goes, I don't think that was anything more than a
suggestion. I don't foresee RSpec removing it's built in mocking. If you
want/need to use another mocking framework,
What's the rationale behind removing the integrated mocking framework? Can
you not still use Mocha or FlexMock or whatever else you'd like to use
still? Meanwhile, the integrated mocking framework in RSpec provides a ready
and able mocking framework for anyone just starting out with RSpec. In my
ex
