On 18-jul-2008, at 1:22, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Leighton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 09:40 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Zach Dennis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps...
When "I login with in
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Leighton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 09:40 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Perhaps...
>> >
>> > When "I login with invalid credentials"
>> > Then "I see
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 09:40 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Perhaps...
> >
> > When "I login with invalid credentials"
> > Then "I see that I have not been logged in"
>
> Or
>
> When I login with invalid credential
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps...
>
> When "I login with invalid credentials"
> Then "I see that I have not been logged in"
Or
When I login with invalid credentials
Then I should see the login form
And I should see a message saying "Someth
Perhaps...
When "I login with invalid credentials"
Then "I see that I have not been logged in"
And in your implementation of the Then you could make sure they are at
the login form still.
Zach
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Leighton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-0
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 08:50 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:
> Are you familiar with Webrat?
Yep, we are using it. However, I want to test what happens when invalid
data is entered - that's the reason to specify that the form gets shown.
What would you consider a better approach to verify the user se
On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Jonathan Leighton wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 07:28 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:
I'm wondering why the examples aren't more specific though. Why is it
OK that the action could be one of two possibilities given a specific
set of givens?
Ok well I lied a little bi
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 07:28 -0500, David Chelimsky wrote:
> I'm wondering why the examples aren't more specific though. Why is it
> OK that the action could be one of two possibilities given a specific
> set of givens?
Ok well I lied a little bit :)
I am using it in a story step, specifically the
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Jonathan Leighton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a Rails spec where I want to check that the action_name is either
> "create" or "update". I can think of a couple of ways to do it, but none
> of them reads fantastically well:
>
> 1. ["create", "update"].should
I have a Rails spec where I want to check that the action_name is either
"create" or "update". I can think of a couple of ways to do it, but none
of them reads fantastically well:
1. ["create", "update"].should include(controller.action_name)
Problem: The error message, should it fail, is: expect
10 matches
Mail list logo
