I think the difference comes down to whether you are writing specs or
tests. It is good enough for RSpec or Cucumber to fake out AR proxies
if all you are doing is testing something. If it is a spec, then I
believe that having the framework fake out the test is very dangerous,
because a r
On Sep 28, 2008, at 7:52 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
What you're proposing could be resolved with an argument constraint
that's been discussed in some other threads on this list - something
like:
lambda {...}.should change{...}.to(array_consisting_of(...))
I'd prefer this as it lets us keep t
On Sep 28, 2008, at 5:01 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
Wow.
OK - here's what I figured out. Talk about insidious bugs! This is
actually quite a bit different from what I thought.
There are two lambdas involved here:
lambda {
1st lambda: expression that should cause the change
}.should change{
Michael Latta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David,
>
> It seems to me that the root of the problem is that the specification
> is incorrect. Since Rails returns association proxies the
> specification fails because it does not specify what the behavior
> should be. I would suggest that instead o
The constraint looks good. ar_proxy_of(...) for this case? Or is
your constraint specified as making a copy?
Your patch seems to be narrow enough that that is also workable. As
you say, it is Rails that is causing the surprise.
Michael
On Sep 28, 2008, at 11:52 AM, David Chelimsky wro
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Michael Latta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David,
>
> It seems to me that the root of the problem is that the specification is
> incorrect. Since Rails returns association proxies the specification fails
> because it does not specify what the behavior should be. I
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Michael Latta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is your patch AR proxy specific? If it is for any collection, it prevents
> two collections from being compared for equality. I have had many examples
> of collections that are not simple containers, and only comparing th
Is your patch AR proxy specific? If it is for any collection, it
prevents two collections from being compared for equality. I have had
many examples of collections that are not simple containers, and only
comparing the contents would be equally invalid as the simple equality
on AR proxies
David,
It seems to me that the root of the problem is that the specification
is incorrect. Since Rails returns association proxies the
specification fails because it does not specify what the behavior
should be. I would suggest that instead of patching the change
matcher, that you shoul
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:01 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Ashley Moran
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Just had a surprising result:
>>>
>>> it "should
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Ashley Moran
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Just had a surprising result:
>>
>> it "should not appear in the Story.unposted list" do
>>@story.save
>>lambda {
>> @s
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just had a surprising result:
>
> it "should not appear in the Story.unposted list" do
>@story.save
>lambda {
> @story.post_to_twitter(@twitter_client)
>}.should change { Story.unposted }.from([EMAIL
Hi
Just had a surprising result:
it "should not appear in the Story.unposted list" do
@story.save
lambda {
@story.post_to_twitter(@twitter_client)
}.should change { Story.unposted }.from([EMAIL PROTECTED]).to([])
end
'Story#post_to_twitter should not appear in the Story.un
13 matches
Mail list logo
