zach.dennis at gmail.com
Tue Sep 30 08:59:08 EDT 2008
Also, a nice thing about RSpec is that when you do describe an actual
object, ie: "describe Foo", you can determine this by asking the
example group what it's described type is.
This makes things a lot simpler and cleaner than having to hack away
strings, or guess based on the name of your test.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Andy Freeman <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
>> Are you willing to provide a simple example?
> I'm using the same example as the articled you linked to originally as
> the base. This way you should be able to clearly see the differences.
>> Matt Wynne wrote:
>>> We do something similar to this, though we use a convention to set
>>> @klass to the class being spec'd in the top-level example group,
>>> rather than deriving it as they do in that sample.
>>> In view specs we also use a convention to always have a do_render
>>> method available, so that we can bring in similarly shared / generated
>>> It's great for speccing two sublcasses which have some common
>>> behaviour, where it feels wrong to spec the (abstract) base class.
>> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> Zach Dennis
More information about the rspec-users