Re: [rspec-users] Problem with testing for an exception from a controller method

2008-02-18 Thread Max Williams
RAILS_GEM_VERSION = '1.1.6' rspec - Version 1.1.3 On 18/02/2008, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2008 8:30 AM, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Won't the exception get turned into a http return code from the get? > > It depends on a few things. > > Max - what v

Re: [rspec-users] Problem with testing for an exception from a controller method

2008-02-18 Thread Max Williams
great minds :) thanks guys! On 18/02/2008, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2008 8:43 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ah yes of course :) > > > > So, now, "should_not be_success" passes ok, but should i be more > specific > > and require a particular error

Re: [rspec-users] Problem with testing for an exception from a controller method

2008-02-18 Thread David Chelimsky
On Feb 18, 2008 8:46 AM, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 500? That's internal server error. You could set up an expectation for the > return, using a code you know isn't right (200?), then see what the actual > value is after you get the failing test. What he said :) > > > > On Feb 18,

Re: [rspec-users] Problem with testing for an exception from a controller method

2008-02-18 Thread David Chelimsky
On Feb 18, 2008 8:43 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ah yes of course :) > > So, now, "should_not be_success" passes ok, but should i be more specific > and require a particular error code? If so, which would i get from a get > call that's failed because of a RuntimeError exception?

Re: [rspec-users] Problem with testing for an exception from a controller method

2008-02-18 Thread Corey Haines
500? That's internal server error. You could set up an expectation for the return, using a code you know isn't right (200?), then see what the actual value is after you get the failing test. On Feb 18, 2008 8:43 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ah yes of course :) > > So, now, "shoul

Re: [rspec-users] Problem with testing for an exception from a controller method

2008-02-18 Thread Max Williams
ah yes of course :) So, now, "should_not be_success" passes ok, but should i be more specific and require a particular error code? If so, which would i get from a get call that's failed because of a RuntimeError exception? thanks! On 18/02/2008, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Won't

Re: [rspec-users] Problem with testing for an exception from a controller method

2008-02-18 Thread David Chelimsky
On Feb 18, 2008 8:30 AM, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Won't the exception get turned into a http return code from the get? It depends on a few things. Max - what versions of rspec and rails are you using? > > > > On Feb 18, 2008 8:29 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >

Re: [rspec-users] Problem with testing for an exception from a controller method

2008-02-18 Thread Corey Haines
Won't the exception get turned into a http return code from the get? On Feb 18, 2008 8:29 AM, Max Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a User controller where users aren't added with the usual > new/create actions. I'm trying to set it so that it raises when 'new' is > called but it does

[rspec-users] Problem with testing for an exception from a controller method

2008-02-18 Thread Max Williams
I have a User controller where users aren't added with the usual new/create actions. I'm trying to set it so that it raises when 'new' is called but it doesn't seem to be working - here's the method, test and test result. Can anyone see why it's not working? #in controller def new raise "Us