I'm new with Ruby and Cucumber. I've tried this simple test, but it
didn't work for me
Given
When I enter ABC on keyboard
Then ...
And here is the ruby code
When /^I enter ([^\]*) on keyboard$/ do |input|
.
end
I always get a complain when executing the test
You can implement step
this group is for rspec
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:34, Vin MR li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
I'm new with Ruby and Cucumber. I've tried this simple test, but it
didn't work for me
Given
When I enter ABC on keyboard
Then ...
And here is the ruby code
When /^I enter ([^\]*) on
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Vin MR wrote:
I'm new with Ruby and Cucumber. I've tried this simple test, but it
didn't work for me
Please send this to the Cucumber mailing list:
http://groups.google.com/group/cukes
Cheers,
David
___
rspec-users
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Vin MR li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
I'm new with Ruby and Cucumber. I've tried this simple test, but it
didn't work for me
Given
When I enter ABC on keyboard
Then ...
And here is the ruby code
When /^I enter ([^\]*) on keyboard$/ do |input|
That
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Chris Habgood chabg...@gmail.com wrote:
this group is for rspec
The Cucumber list - http://groups.google.com/group/cukes
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:34, Vin MR li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
I'm new with Ruby and Cucumber. I've tried this simple test, but it
On 24 Dec 2008, at 02:26, Sarah Allen wrote:
Matt Wynne wrote:
ActiveRecord::Validations uses a trick that's used widely in rails,
and is arguably[1] becoming a Ruby idiom, apparently.
This is the interesting bit, around line #275:
def self.included(base) # :nodoc:
base.extend
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Matt Wynne m...@mattwynne.net wrote:
Is that some kind of trick to create multiple
inheritance?
Not really in that particular case. Ruby modules generally allow you to do
multiple inheritance by 'mixing in' behaviour to classes, but that would be
when you
On 22 Dec 2008, at 19:09, Sarah Allen wrote:
I realize this is off-topic for the RSpec forum and cucumber tutorial,
but I'm hoping you'll enlighten me on this point which is, I guess,
more
of a Ruby language question...
My Task model is simply defined (by the generate scaffold script) as:
Very nice indeed...
In your blog you said:
Note that one of the steps is already defined in webrat. Isn't that
cool? As you get the hang of this, you reuse certain word patterns
which map to specific tests. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. We
need to dive into the creation of steps which
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Tim Walker walke...@gmail.com wrote:
Very nice indeed...
In your blog you said:
Note that one of the steps is already defined in webrat. Isn't that
cool? As you get the hang of this, you reuse certain word patterns
which map to specific tests. But we're
Ahh...reality is overrated.
Thanks again for your help guys. Making a lot of sense. If I could get
rcumber working that's be awesome.
Tim
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:39 PM, aslak hellesoy
aslak.helle...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Tim Walker walke...@gmail.com wrote:
Matt Wynne wrote:
ActiveRecord::Validations uses a trick that's used widely in rails,
and is arguably[1] becoming a Ruby idiom, apparently.
This is the interesting bit, around line #275:
def self.included(base) # :nodoc:
base.extend ClassMethods
So basically that means that
On 23 Dec 2008, at 18:26, Sarah Allen wrote:
Matt Wynne wrote:
ActiveRecord::Validations uses a trick that's used widely in rails,
and is arguably[1] becoming a Ruby idiom, apparently.
This is the interesting bit, around line #275:
def self.included(base) # :nodoc:
base.extend
On 23 Dec 2008, at 23:07, Jeremiah Heller wrote:
On 23 Dec 2008, at 18:26, Sarah Allen wrote:
Matt Wynne wrote:
ActiveRecord::Validations uses a trick that's used widely in rails,
and is arguably[1] becoming a Ruby idiom, apparently.
This is the interesting bit, around line #275:
def
I got started with cucumber and it sure is fun. I've written up my
initial experience in tutorial format here for any newbies who want to
follow in my tracks:
http://www.ultrasaurus.com/code/2008/12/rails-2-day-3.html
If anyone has any corrections, let me know. I was wondering whether
when
Great stuff.
One thing I'd point out is the missing (and extremely important) step
3.5 in Rick Denatale's TDD steps: *Refactor to remove duplication*.
Not that there's any refactoring necessary in your example, but it's
always worth reminding people they should check for it.
On 22 Dec
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Sarah Allen li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
I got started with cucumber and it sure is fun. I've written up my
initial experience in tutorial format here for any newbies who want to
follow in my tracks:
http://www.ultrasaurus.com/code/2008/12/rails-2-day-3.html
Aslak Hellesøy wrote:
* I released 0.1.13 yesterday. In the Rails installation wiki page I
recommend using my webrat gem. It lets you use response.should
have_selector(...) (You're not using it in your tutorial, but just in
case...)
Luckily I started with cucumber on Sunday just after your
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Sarah Allen li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
Aslak Hellesøy wrote:
* I released 0.1.13 yesterday. In the Rails installation wiki page I
recommend using my webrat gem. It lets you use response.should
have_selector(...) (You're not using it in your tutorial, but
I realize this is off-topic for the RSpec forum and cucumber tutorial,
but I'm hoping you'll enlighten me on this point which is, I guess, more
of a Ruby language question...
Aslak Hellesøy wrote:
As you can see from my series of blog posts, I'm
new to Ruby and Rails. I thought that ending a
On 22 Dec 2008, at 17:18, aslak hellesoy wrote:
Essentially, #create will never raise an error no matter what you
pass it, and you actually want exceptions for bad input in your
tests (step definitions).
Therefore - use #create! (or #save!). In your app, use the non-bang
methods.
Use
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Sarah Allen li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
I realize this is off-topic for the RSpec forum and cucumber tutorial,
but I'm hoping you'll enlighten me on this point which is, I guess, more
of a Ruby language question...
Aslak Hellesøy wrote:
As you can see from
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Caius Durling ca...@caius.name wrote:
On 22 Dec 2008, at 17:18, aslak hellesoy wrote:
Essentially, #create will never raise an error no matter what you pass it,
and you actually want exceptions for bad input in your tests (step
definitions).
Therefore - use
+1 @ Pat
I was going to respond in more detail, but I do exactly what Pat does --
bang in steps, no bang in Rails apps. The Rails scaffolding boiler plate
generates no bangs.
Steve
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Pat Maddox perg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Caius
You guys are awesome. For posterity, I've written up a bit about the
bang vs. non-bang as an aside in the tutorial:
http://www.ultrasaurus.com/code/2008/12/rails-2-day-3.html#syntax
I'll have to read up on modules. (I've only just finished ch 3 of the
humble ruby book.)
Oddly, I didn't see
On 22 Dec 2008, at 22:57, Sarah Allen wrote:
Oddly, I didn't see any content to the post by Caius Durling via
ruby-forum (
http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/174015?reply_to=762550#762530 )
How weird, wonder if its because I signed the email with my GPG key.
Have sent this one unsigned so
26 matches
Mail list logo
