On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Tom Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any responses to
> http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2008/11/4/we-ve-stopped-using-rspec ? How much
> of this is due to legitimate bugs/problems versus unfortunate circumstances?
> Feels kind of worrying that they haven't
On 4 Nov 2008, at 11:10, Andrew Premdas wrote:
Is there any way to do
foo.should (be_nil || be_empty)
in rspec.
That won't do what you want it to, at first glance it will always
match with be_nil. You could write a custom matcher
(be_nil_or_empty), but I suspect that's not the real a
On 4 Nov 2008, at 13:25, aslak hellesoy wrote:
I wish people would seek out the developers (mailing list, bug
tracker) before they go out and whine. See my comment in the blog
post.
RSpec seems to be a victim of "when I do BDD wrong, RSpec makes my
tests fragile/confusing/verbose, so I'll
Subject: [rspec-users] Caboosers drop RSpec
The subject is wrong too; Caboosers didn't drop RSpec. Two people
from caboose dropped RSpec. Most of the caboosers I know are still
using RSpec.
Any responses to http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2008/11/4/we-ve-stopped-using-rspec
? How much of
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Steven Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Subject: [rspec-users] Caboosers drop RSpec
>
> The subject is wrong too; Caboosers didn't drop RSpec. Two people from
> caboose dropped RSpec. Most of the caboosers I know are still using RSpec.
>
>> Any responses to
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:25 AM, aslak hellesoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Tom Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Any responses to
>> http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2008/11/4/we-ve-stopped-using-rspec ? How much
>> of this is due to legitimate bugs/probl
On 4 Nov 2008, at 14:37, Steven Baker wrote:
The subject is wrong too; Caboosers didn't drop RSpec. Two people
from caboose dropped RSpec. Most of the caboosers I know are still
using RSpec.
Sadly this one has legs and is running wild:
http://www.rubyflow.com/items/1131
Never let the f
On 4 Nov 2008, at 15:13, Ashley Moran wrote:
Never let the facts get it the way of a good headline?
in even
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://aviewfromafar.net/
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/ma
>> Never let the facts get it the way of a good headline?
This is typical of rubyflow. I wouldn't worry about it too much.
It was only a matter of time before the unfortunate political climate
of the Rails community started bleeding into our party.
Please don't let this get in the way of learni
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Steven Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Never let the facts get it the way of a good headline?
>
> This is typical of rubyflow. I wouldn't worry about it too much.
>
> It was only a matter of time before the unfortunate political climate
> of the Rails community
"Andrew Premdas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> General case I'm thinking about is just testing that something should be one
> thing or another
>
>e.g x.should be(foo || bar)
>
> Haven't got a specific example at the moment apart from the blank one. What
> I'm thinking about is the syntax
Hello,
Sometimes when we place expectations on class methods, the class
methods seem to be not available in their previous form for other,
later specs. Calling the class methods in other specs result in a no
method error. We commonly find this happening when model specs run
after controller specs
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Jim Lindley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sometimes when we place expectations on class methods, the class
> methods seem to be not available in their previous form for other,
> later specs. Calling the class methods in other specs result in a no
> method e
Assuming you have a multi-step wizard like thing, with lots of different
states and paths through it. What approach would your use to write a feature
for it? What I want to do is do the separate states and then reuse these
things in more complex scenarios that cover paths. For example
Scenario: Sta
> A poor craftsman blames his tools.
>
And the poor toolmaker blames the craftsman for being too stupid to
understand how to use his tools.
You say these guys should have come over and posted to this mailing-list
or submitted bugs. But when I read the posts here, most of the time,
when someone
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A poor craftsman blames his tools.
>>
> And the poor toolmaker blames the craftsman for being too stupid to
> understand how to use his tools.
>
> You say these guys should have come over and posted to this mailing-list
>
> Hey Jim - I think this is related to this:
>
> http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/589
>
> Would you kindly add your comments to that ticket?
>
I updated the ticket, thanks David! I also changed the title to
something more general then the existing case implied. It's not just
Ke
On 2008-11-04, at 10:32, Fernando Perez wrote:
You say these guys should have come over and posted to this mailing-
list
or submitted bugs. But when I read the posts here, most of the time,
when someone has a problem he gets pointed to the unfriendly
documentation pages or worse, the very thin d
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Luis Lavena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> But when I read the posts here, most of the time,
>> when someone has a problem he gets pointed to the unfriendly
>> documentation pages or worse
Ashley,
Thanks for your time on this, the reply does make sense, and I can see from
an OO point of view that any particular object being (foo||bar) is
equivalent to that object being baz. However with the dynamic nature of ruby
we often don't know what object we are going to be dealing with in our
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Stephen Eley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Luis Lavena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> But when I read the posts here, most of the time,
>>> when someone h
On 4 Nov 2008, at 16:09, Stephen Eley wrote:
Pat, Ashley, David and Aslak give quite share of their time answering
those emails, do a search and you will find out.
That's not a replacement for good documentation. You have to have a
certain grounding before you can even figure out where to go a
On 4 Nov 2008, at 15:41, Andrew Premdas wrote:
Assuming you have a multi-step wizard like thing, with lots of
different states and paths through it. What approach would your use
to write a feature for it? What I want to do is do the separate
states and then reuse these things in more comple
Ok I see. I was approaching this more from the syntax that my stories can
express rather than what my code does. However from these replies and a
re-read of the cucumber wiki I can see that any step that requires the
(foo||bar) construct is by definition a conjunction and can be broken into
smaller
Here is a very simple spec:
--
require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper')
describe Product, "The Product model" do
describe "When a new blank product object gets created" do
before(:each) do
@product = Product.new
end
it "should not be valid" do
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Andrew Premdas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok I see. I was approaching this more from the syntax that my stories can
> express rather than what my code does. However from these replies and a
> re-read of the cucumber wiki I can see that any step that requires the
>
On 4-nov-2008, at 17:20, Matt Wynne wrote:
On 4 Nov 2008, at 16:09, Stephen Eley wrote:
Pat, Ashley, David and Aslak give quite share of their time
answering
those emails, do a search and you will find out.
That's not a replacement for good documentation. You have to have a
certain ground
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is a very simple spec:
> --
> require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper')
>
> describe Product, "The Product model" do
>
> describe "When a new blank product object gets created" do
>befo
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Bart Zonneveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 4-nov-2008, at 17:20, Matt Wynne wrote:
>
>> On 4 Nov 2008, at 16:09, Stephen Eley wrote:
Pat, Ashley, David and Aslak give quite share of their time answering
those emails, do a search and you will fin
Thanks Matt, just what I was looking for :)
Andrew
2008/11/4 Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 4 Nov 2008, at 15:41, Andrew Premdas wrote:
>
> Assuming you have a multi-step wizard like thing, with lots of different
>> states and paths through it. What approach would your use to write a featur
Oh I was definitely into theoretical speculation here :) - haven't got a
particular case at the moment
2008/11/4 Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Andrew Premdas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Ok I see. I was approaching this more from the syntax that my stories
On 4 Nov 2008, at 11:26, Andrew Premdas wrote:
Any ideas about the general case, is making a custom matcher the
(only) way to go?
Can you give an example of what you're doing, or think you might do?
Until I saw Tom's reply it never occurred to me that you might be
dealing with strings (
Doh! I forgot to run the migrations in the newly created DB.
Thanks.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Andrew Premdas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> General case I'm thinking about is just testing that something should be one
>> thing or another
>>
>>e.g x.should be(foo || bar)
>>
>> Haven't got a specific example at th
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > @product = Product.new
>
> > PGError: ERROR: relation "products" does not exist
>
> > I don't understand why RSpec is trying to look for some kind of
> > relation. In the spec I am simply calling Prod
On Nov 4, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Luis Lavena wrote:
Neither Rails was the one with best documentation (which btw I wonder
what happened with the caboose documentation project they collected
12K, anyway).
Tangential to this discussion, but anyhow: some of that money is going
into the Rails Guides
General case I'm thinking about is just testing that something should be one
thing or another
e.g x.should be(foo || bar)
Haven't got a specific example at the moment apart from the blank one. What
I'm thinking about is the syntax to say this in a spec, as I think there
must be lots of times w
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Mike Gunderloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Luis Lavena wrote:
>
>> Neither Rails was the one with best documentation (which btw I wonder
>> what happened with the caboose documentation project they collected
>> 12K, anyway).
>
> Tangenti
On Nov 4, 5:25 am, "aslak hellesoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Tom Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > Any responses to
> >http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2008/11/4/we-ve-stopped-using-rspec? How much
> > of this is due to legitimate bugs/problems versus
Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is a very simple spec:
> --
> require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper')
>
> describe Product, "The Product model" do
>
> describe "When a new blank product object gets created" do
> before(:each) do
> @product
On 4 Nov 2008, at 17:32, court3nay wrote:
upgrade. It might well be bugs in Rails not rSpec, but if the only
thing that changed was rSpec, well, you see my problem. In my mind
rspec has a long history of breaking things between versions.
If this is a common complaint, do we maybe need some be
Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A poor craftsman blames his tools.
>>
> And the poor toolmaker blames the craftsman for being too stupid to
> understand how to use his tools.
>
> You say these guys should have come over and posted to this mailing-list
> or submitted bugs. But when
"Stephen Eley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The list is pretty helpful, sure, but the
> documentation _could_ stand for a lot of improvement.
Agree 100%. Got a git repo I can pull from? :)
Pat
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
htt
Andrew Premdas wrote:
Thanks Matt, just what I was looking for :)
Andrew
You could also use GivenScenario. It works like this:
Scenario: State A
Given I'm ...
And I'm ...
When I ...
Then I should see
And I at state A
Scenario: Test A to B
GivenScenario A
When I ...
Or you could do a c
On 4 Nov 2008, at 17:42, Ben Mabey wrote:
Andrew Premdas wrote:
Thanks Matt, just what I was looking for :)
Andrew
You could also use GivenScenario.
Dude, that is s "Story Runner".
;)
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
h
On 4 Nov 2008, at 11:10, Andrew Premdas wrote:
Is there any way to do
foo.should (be_nil || be_empty)
in rspec.
"foo.should be_blank" would work if you're using Rails (i.e.
ActiveSupport is loaded).
Cheers,
-Tom
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspe
On Nov 04, 2008, at 5:07 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
FYI - if you REALLY want to match against either, it's pretty easy to
do w/ simple matcher:
def be_nil_or_empty
simple_matcher "nil? or empty? to return true" do |actual|
actual.nil? || actual.empty?
end
end
Wow, I completely forgot a
Is there any way to do
foo.should (be_nil || be_empty)
in rspec.
Thanks in advance
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On Nov 04, 2008, at 6:18 pm, Matt Wynne wrote:
You could also use GivenScenario.
Dude, that is s "Story Runner".
And s deprecated too, right?
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://aviewfromafar.net/
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-u
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 04, 2008, at 5:07 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> FYI - if you REALLY want to match against either, it's pretty easy to
>> do w/ simple matcher:
>>
>> def be_nil_or_empty
>> simple_matcher "nil? or empty? to return
Ashley Moran wrote:
On Nov 04, 2008, at 6:18 pm, Matt Wynne wrote:
You could also use GivenScenario.
Dude, that is s "Story Runner".
And s deprecated too, right?
Oh really? Hmm.. I assumed it was still there. :)
-Ben
___
rspec-users
On Nov 04, 2008, at 5:07 pm, Fernando Perez wrote:
Doh! I forgot to run the migrations in the newly created DB.
Hi Fernando
I used to do this all the time, so I made a db:migrate:all task[1]
that means you don't have to remember which version which DB is on.
Mine is for Merb, but I can
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 04, 2008, at 5:07 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> FYI - if you REALLY want to match against either, it's pretty easy to
>> do w/ simple matcher:
>>
>> def be_nil_or_empty
>> simple_matcher "nil? or empty? to return
Here is my spec:
--
describe Admin::ProductsController, "A visitor wants to access
admin/products" do
before(:each) do
@product = mock_model(Product, :traffic_available => 0)
Product.stub!(:find_by_domain_name).and_return(@product)
end
it "should redirect to login path" do
get :
On 4 Nov 2008, at 12:45, Andrew Premdas wrote:
General case I'm thinking about is just testing that something
should be one thing or another
e.g x.should be(foo || bar)
Haven't got a specific example at the moment apart from the blank
one. What I'm thinking about is the syntax to say
As a starter, can someone tell me if the specs defined in
restful_authentication are clever? Can I learn from them?
Because right now I find them overwhelming, complicated, over-testing,
etc.
Does anyone know of a good app with specs I could learn from? It always
makes me laugh to think about
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is my spec:
> --
> describe Admin::ProductsController, "A visitor wants to access
> admin/products" do
>
> before(:each) do
>@product = mock_model(Product, :traffic_available => 0)
>Product.stub!(:find_by_doma
"David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alternatively, you could add a new method:
>
> def_matcher
I dig this.
Pat
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On 4 Nov 2008, at 19:38, Fernando Perez wrote:
Here is my spec:
--
describe Admin::ProductsController, "A visitor wants to access
admin/products" do
before(:each) do
@product = mock_model(Product, :traffic_available => 0)
Product.stub!(:find_by_domain_name).and_return(@product)
Should t
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Alternatively, you could add a new method:
>>
>> def_matcher
>
> I dig this.
FYI - I was talking off-line (on line, really, but outside this list)
to wycats and he's got some
Fernando Perez wrote:
As a starter, can someone tell me if the specs defined in
restful_authentication are clever? Can I learn from them?
Please don't look at restful_auth as an example on how to use rspec
examples and/or the story runner. The stories in particular are very
brittle.
Becau
On Nov 04, 2008, at 7:28 pm, Ben Mabey wrote:
Oh really? Hmm.. I assumed it was still there. :)
Search for Aslak's comments, I'm pretty sure it will be pulled in
Cucumber 0.3.
Calling steps is much neater from inside other steps is much neater,
and doesn't produce the visible step-expl
On Nov 04, 2008, at 7:24 pm, Zach Dennis wrote:
There are a few obstacles that it would have to overcome. As-is I
don't think that will work. If you file a ticket I'll comment there as
to why I think that. :)
I've filed a ticket[1]. Unleash your scepticism, Zach! :)
Ashley
[1]
http://rs
> That work?
It could. But in such case, how will I test my before_filter
independently?
My real problem is to stub the find_by_domain_name instance method.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.
Its still there in source.
You can read why people felt calling steps from steps was a better approach
here:
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211/tickets/3-create-givenscenario-dependency-accross-feature-files
--
Joseph Wilk
http://www.joesniff.co.uk
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Ben
Are the docs on mock outdated? I sometimes see mock_model, and sometimes
mock. Which one should be used?
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On 4 Nov 2008, at 20:46, Fernando Perez wrote:
Are the docs on mock outdated? I sometimes see mock_model, and
sometimes
mock. Which one should be used?
For mock_model, you need to look at the rspec-rails gem, which is a
separate library.
You actually have three choices when mocking an Ac
Crap! I was stubbing Product, instead of Site! It all works now. Matt's
typo put me on the track!
But I will definitely use the trick Spec::Runner.configure do
|config|...
to avoid having to type this stub in all my files.
Thanks.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On Nov 4, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Ben Mabey wrote:
Fernando Perez wrote:
As a starter, can someone tell me if the specs defined in
restful_authentication are clever? Can I learn from them?
Please don't look at restful_auth as an example on how to use rspec
examples and/or the story runner. T
Thanks Ashley. And I am sure I will forget to run migration for the test
environment each time I make changes to it. I will create a dumb script
that looks like:
--
RAILS_ENV=production rake db:migrate
RAILS_ENV=test rake db:migrate
...
It's not DRY but it's so easy to read with so little lines
Ok I get it. I was wondering why mock_model was not showing up in
rspec's rdoc. Thanks for the clarification.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-us
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Tom Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any responses to
> http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2008/11/4/we-ve-stopped-using-rspec ? How much
> of this is due to legitimate bugs/problems versus unfortunate circumstances?
> Feels kind of worrying that they haven't
On 4 Nov 2008, at 21:05, Fernando Perez wrote:
I would like to know: does anyone in this mailing-list actually never
ever writes a single line of code before having written its spec(s)?
In
other words: do you fully comply to TDD or do you sometimes break the
rules?
As a friend of mine said r
Thank you Ben, my doubts about restful_auth specs have been confirmed.
I think having a good solid Rails app, with well written specs to learn
from is what prevents its adoption. I myself have got pissed a thousand
times not knowing how to write a spec for a very simple piece of code.
So I simp
In one of my controller tests I'm testing a method which uses
self.send() to do some pre-processing if that
private method name is defined:
# If this task requires some additional preperation then
create a
# private method below with the same name as the
task_type
Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As a starter, can someone tell me if the specs defined in
> restful_authentication are clever? Can I learn from them?
>
> Because right now I find them overwhelming, complicated, over-testing,
> etc.
I don't even use restful_auth, precisely because I
On Nov 4, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
Are the docs on mock outdated? I sometimes see mock_model, and
sometimes
mock. Which one should be used?
mock_model is for ActiveRecord objects. it's just a mock() call with
a random id stub set, and a :new_record? => false
Scott
_
Pat Maddox wrote:
Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
As a starter, can someone tell me if the specs defined in
restful_authentication are clever? Can I learn from them?
Because right now I find them overwhelming, complicated, over-testing,
etc.
I don't even use restful_auth
This trick to spec a named_scope method works very well. And it cleans
up the chain mess in the controller.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-user
Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pat Maddox wrote:
>> Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>> As a starter, can someone tell me if the specs defined in
>>> restful_authentication are clever? Can I learn from them?
>>>
>>> Because right now I find them overwhelming, complicat
David Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In one of my controller tests I'm testing a method which uses
> self.send() to do some pre-processing if that
> private method name is defined:
>
> # If this task requires some additional preperation then
> create a
> # private me
Hi,
Any responses to http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2008/11/4/we-ve-stopped-using-rspec
? How much of this is due to legitimate bugs/problems versus
unfortunate circumstances? Feels kind of worrying that they haven't
been able to make it work for them.
Cheers,
-Tom
On 4 Nov 2008, at 21:48, Fernando Perez wrote:
This trick to spec a named_scope method works very well. And it cleans
up the chain mess in the controller.
Which trick is that?
Sorry if this sounds a bit patronising, but it does help if you quote
the relevant bits of a post you're replying t
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Ashley. And I am sure I will forget to run migration for the test
> environment each time I make changes to it. I will create a dumb script
> that looks like:
> --
> RAILS_ENV=production rake db:migrate
> RAILS_ENV=
Sweet I'm using rails so will give it a go. Any ideas about the general
case, is making a custom matcher the (only) way to go?
All best
Andrew
2008/11/4 Tom Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 4 Nov 2008, at 11:10, Andrew Premdas wrote:
>
>> Is there any way to do
>> foo.should (be_nil || be_empty)
hi,
I have an issue in that I have some reference data my migrations run
in. However when running "rake spec" it seems to remove the data in
the test database up front.
What do you recommend to workaround this issue?
Thanks
Greg
___
rspec-users mailin
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Greg Hauptmann <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have an issue in that I have some reference data my migrations run
> in. However when running "rake spec" it seems to remove the data in
> the test database up front.
>
> What do you recommend to workaround this issu
On Nov 04, 2008, at 10:15 pm, Mark Wilden wrote:
I think it's actually simpler to do 'rake db:test:prepare' rather
than migrate the test database. Migrations can be a pain when you've
only got one database to worry about, much less two. The
db:test:prepare task extracts the schema from the
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Ashley Moran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> On Nov 04, 2008, at 10:15 pm, Mark Wilden wrote:
>
> I think it's actually simpler to do 'rake db:test:prepare' rather than
>> migrate the test database. Migrations can be a pain when you've only got one
>> database to wor
On Nov 5, 1:55 am, "Luis Lavena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given a problem I have with RSpec
> And I post to the mailing list
> When noone answer my post
> And has been N days since I posted
> Then I start whining in my blog about it
I'm still learning the ways of cucumber, though I think this
"Greg Hauptmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hi,
>
> I have an issue in that I have some reference data my migrations run
> in. However when running "rake spec" it seems to remove the data in
> the test database up front.
>
> What do you recommend to workaround this issue?
>
> Thanks
> Greg
> _
I am missing something here. Using PostgreSQL, when I remove this line
from the rake task, I don't see the DB being populated although I do
invoke create! on some models.
When I use debug(@some_instance) I see its id gets increased, so there
is definitely some data already in the DB.
Why can't I
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am missing something here. Using PostgreSQL, when I remove this line
> from the rake task, I don't see the DB being populated although I do
> invoke create! on some models.
>
Vanilla Rails test:* tasks do the same, as d
Here you go:
It's not easy to test for the following named_scopes:
--
Thing.method1(@current_user).method2.method3 :page =>
params[:page]
--
I tried:
--
Thing.should_receive(:method1)..
Thing.should_receive(:method2)..
Thing.should_receive(:method3)
--
But testing for these three method calls did
Fernando Perez wrote:
I am missing something here. Using PostgreSQL, when I remove this line
from the rake task, I don't see the DB being populated although I do
invoke create! on some models.
When I use debug(@some_instance) I see its id gets increased, so there
is definitely some data already
Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Therefore a workaround is to define an instance method:
> --
> class Thing
> def self.method1_and_method2(arg)
> method1(arg).method2
> end
> end
I'm inclined to call this an improvement rather than a workaround :)
Pat
Sent from my iPhone
On 5. nov.. 2008, at 00.05, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Greg Hauptmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
hi,
I have an issue in that I have some reference data my migrations run
in. However when running "rake spec" it seems to remove the data in
the test database
Aslak Hellesøy wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On 5. nov.. 2008, at 00.05, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Greg Hauptmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
hi,
I have an issue in that I have some reference data my migrations run
in. However when running "rake spec" it seems to remove the da
On Nov 04, 2008, at 11:09 pm, Dr Nic wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:55 am, "Luis Lavena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given a problem I have with RSpec
And I post to the mailing list
When noone answer my post
And has been N days since I posted
Then I start whining in my blog about it
I'm still learning th
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM, aslak hellesoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> db:test:prepare is a shortcut for running all the migrations from the
> first to the last.
>
Not quite. db:test:prepare just copies the schema from the development
database to the test database. It aborts if there are any
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
