On 9/8/07, Jay Levitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/8/2007 4:19 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
> > So far it has been
> > a mixed experience - I have found that it doesn't work very well with
> > rails as you end up debugging more of rails then of your own code.
>
> Finally, a debugging environment th
On 9/8/2007 4:19 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
> So far it has been
> a mixed experience - I have found that it doesn't work very well with
> rails as you end up debugging more of rails then of your own code.
Finally, a debugging environment that matches the production environment!
Jay
On Sep 5, 2007, at 4:25 AM, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
> El 4/9/2007, a las 22:51, Geoffrey Wiseman escribió:
>
>> Using this as an example, if a new validation rule is added, this
>> test will
>> fail without indicating /why/. Sure, I can get that answer in
>> other ways,
>> but I'd hate to discov
El 4/9/2007, a las 22:51, Geoffrey Wiseman escribió:
> Using this as an example, if a new validation rule is added, this
> test will
> fail without indicating /why/. Sure, I can get that answer in
> other ways,
> but I'd hate to discover things like:
>
> it "should be valid with valid attribu
On 9/4/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe this is what your thinking?
>
> http://opensoul.org/2007/4/18/rspec-model-should-be_valid
>
That should be the default matcher for be_valid... I use that and help
me pinpoint some brittle specs (all related to new attributes added
later in th
Pat Maddox wrote:
> On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
me
On 9/4/07, Jay Levitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Seems like, in this case, he'd output @person.errors in his message so
> he could see *why* person was invalid; the "puts" is his current
> hack-around for the lack of custom messages.
>
> Not a bad idea, really. (the custom messages, not the ha
On 9/4/07, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
> > > > from. We made a conscious decision, however, not
On 9/4/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
> > > from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
> > > messages almost two years ago and
Chad Humphries wrote:
> I generally write custom expectation matchers when I want more
> specific information on failure scenarios. Granted this might not
> work in all scenarios (taking time to write a custom matcher I mean),
> but for most things it has made it very nice.
Hmm, I wonder if
I generally write custom expectation matchers when I want more
specific information on failure scenarios. Granted this might not
work in all scenarios (taking time to write a custom matcher I mean),
but for most things it has made it very nice.
-Chad
On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Jay Levitt
Shane Mingins wrote:
>
> On 5/09/2007, at 8:51 AM, Geoffrey Wiseman wrote:
>
>>
>> Using this as an example, if a new validation rule is added, this test
>> will fail without indicating /why/. Sure, I can get that answer in
>> other ways, but I'd hate to discover things like:
>>
>> it "should
On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
> > from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
> > messages almost two years ago and I'm not sure if its ever even come
> > up before. If it has,
On 5/09/2007, at 8:51 AM, Geoffrey Wiseman wrote:
Using this as an example, if a new validation rule is added, this
test will fail without indicating /why/. Sure, I can get that
answer in other ways, but I'd hate to discover things like:
it "should be valid with valid attributes" do
#
>
> I come from the same background as you, so I hear where you're coming
> from. We made a conscious decision, however, not to support custom
> messages almost two years ago and I'm not sure if its ever even come
> up before. If it has, it was a long time ago.
[nod] Perhaps as I get into the mi
On 9/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having used JUnit and Test::Unit, I'm quite used to having the ability to
> insert a failure message, which helps when tests fail.
>
> For instance, the example RSpec that is generated for a model class
> specifies that the model class is val
Having used JUnit and Test::Unit, I'm quite used to having the ability to
insert a failure message, which helps when tests fail.
For instance, the example RSpec that is generated for a model class
specifies that the model class is valid. Assuming this were supposed to be
true, and it failed, I've
17 matches
Mail list logo
