On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Phlip wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> When RSpec is used as customer facing, they see the docstrings
>> (strings passed to describe() and it()), not the internal code. That's
>> for developers.
>
> Then why the .should stuff? I'm a developer - technically - an
The same error message for a stray nil:
This attempt, calling simple_matcher directly, gives nearly the same nil:
def be_xml_with_(&block)
waz_xdoc = @xdoc
simple_matcher 'yo' do |given, matcher|
wrap_expectation matcher do
assert_xhtml given # this works
block
David Chelimsky wrote:
When RSpec is used as customer facing, they see the docstrings
(strings passed to describe() and it()), not the internal code. That's
for developers.
Then why the .should stuff? I'm a developer - technically - and I never needed
it!
But enough sophistry: Back to busine
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Phlip wrote:
>> This looks pretty cool. I wonder if you'd have any interest in making
>> this a bit more rspec-friendly? Something like an option to run it
>> like this:
>
> Here's the spec. The sauce is below my signature.
>
> it 'should have a user form with the
This looks pretty cool. I wonder if you'd have any interest in making
this a bit more rspec-friendly? Something like an option to run it
like this:
Here's the spec. The sauce is below my signature.
it 'should have a user form with the first name' do
render '/users/new'
response.body.s
