Leonel,
Sorry, I have been of the line for sometime. I haven't followed this mail
thread, but I had already answered your problem last Friday, so I just send
it through. I hope my contribution will still be of good help.
Le 14 octobre 2010 18:27:44 UTC+2, Leonel *.* a écrit
:
> > For testing sa
On 14 October 2010 17:27, Leonel *.* wrote:
>> For testing sake (or whether you call it bug hunt),
>> I would find the user first and search for the user's account. In that way
>> I will be able to test for the avaliabilty of the user and the
>> availability of the account separately.
>
> Thanks,
> For testing sake (or whether you call it bug hunt),
> I would find the user first and search for the user's account. In that way
> I will be able to test for the avaliabilty of the user and the
> availability of the account separately.
Thanks, ok, so I did this...
APPLICATION CONTROLLER
class A
On 14 October 2010 16:32, Leonel *.* wrote:
>> Another point, it might be worth providing a method somewhere called
>> current_user (possibly in application_controller) that does the find,
>> then you will not need to keep typing the find everywhere you want
>> current_user.
>
> I'm trying to do e
> Another point, it might be worth providing a method somewhere called
> current_user (possibly in application_controller) that does the find,
> then you will not need to keep typing the find everywhere you want
> current_user.
I'm trying to do exactly that, but the app doesn't seem to find the
s
> OK, but did you take heed of my warning in my first reply? Can you
> guarantee that a user will always have a company (even in unusual
> circumstances)? Add into your automated tests one where the user does
> not have a company and see what happens. (Hint, find returns nil if
> it cannot find
6 matches
Mail list logo
