From peter.hicks at poggs.co.uk  Sat Jan  2 06:17:45 2010
From: peter.hicks at poggs.co.uk (Peter Hicks)
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:17:45 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Loading numerous data structures from YAML files
Message-ID: <4B3F2B59.8000700@poggs.co.uk>

All,

I am writing specs for some multi-stage tests which require a lot of 
input data.

A simplified overview of the tests is as follows:

  * Provide list of network interfaces, confirm they are added to the 
database
  * Provide list of network interfaces as above, but with one entry 
added, and confirm this entry is added to the database
  * Provide list of network interfaces as above, but with a different 
entry removed, and confirm this entry is added to the database

I want to isolate the test data from the specs themselves for 
cleanliness, and I am thinking of putting them in YAML files.

How best should I tackle this?  Where should I put the YAML files and is 
there any functionality in RSpec that will help?  Should I roll my own 
"load test data" code and present that to the test code?

Best wishes,


Peter

From apremdas at gmail.com  Sat Jan  2 16:23:23 2010
From: apremdas at gmail.com (Andrew Premdas)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 21:23:23 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] more verbosity for be_an?
In-Reply-To: <bed002bc-7f41-4e4f-8f74-dc546df76c68@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <d29f3b75-b741-4da3-957b-fafb3fcc39c8@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0912301219l43937dc6he78256e600eeeb30@mail.gmail.com>
	<bed002bc-7f41-4e4f-8f74-dc546df76c68@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <88fd8ddc1001021323o5537de65x8519b91c867acc69@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/30 rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com>

> > What about something like:
> >
> >   expected #<Class:2158174640> => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum
> >
> > That is more aligned with other failure messages. WDYT?
>
> I quite like it.
> In this instance it was
>
> 3.class.should be_a Fixnum # fails
>
> I suppose it would be something like
> expected #<Class:Fixnum> => Class to be a kind of Fixnum
>
> ?
>
> > And just out of curiosity, Roger, what's your use case?  I can't remember
> ever using be_a/be_an, at least not in any code that has survived.
>
> The very first test I thought up was "this method should return an
> integer" so kind of a basic test for a not yet existent method.
>
>
Isn't this a bit anti-ruby though. Surely the things we should be testing is
that the object exists, responds to certain messages and gives certain
values back for those messages. Thinking about types is so Java, C++ :-)


all best

Andrew

> -r
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100102/2eb6f52b/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jan  2 16:35:53 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:35:53 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] more verbosity for be_an?
In-Reply-To: <88fd8ddc1001021323o5537de65x8519b91c867acc69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d29f3b75-b741-4da3-957b-fafb3fcc39c8@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0912301219l43937dc6he78256e600eeeb30@mail.gmail.com>
	<bed002bc-7f41-4e4f-8f74-dc546df76c68@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<88fd8ddc1001021323o5537de65x8519b91c867acc69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001021335m326fda84jca91d57962a70182@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Premdas <apremdas at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/12/30 rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com>
>
> > What about something like:
>> >
>> >   expected #<Class:2158174640> => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum
>> >
>> > That is more aligned with other failure messages. WDYT?
>>
>> I quite like it.
>> In this instance it was
>>
>> 3.class.should be_a Fixnum # fails
>>
>> I suppose it would be something like
>> expected #<Class:Fixnum> => Class to be a kind of Fixnum
>>
>> ?
>>
>> > And just out of curiosity, Roger, what's your use case?  I can't
>> remember ever using be_a/be_an, at least not in any code that has survived.
>>
>> The very first test I thought up was "this method should return an
>> integer" so kind of a basic test for a not yet existent method.
>>
>>
> Isn't this a bit anti-ruby though. Surely the things we should be testing
> is that the object exists, responds to certain messages and gives certain
> values back for those messages. Thinking about types is so Java, C++ :-)
>

Generally speaking, you're correct, but there are cases where this is
valuable - like if you're spec'ing a factory in a lib for others to use,
etc.


>
>
> all best
>
> Andrew
>
>> -r
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100102/407cb1c7/attachment-0001.html>

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Sat Jan  2 17:02:40 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] Loading numerous data structures from YAML files
In-Reply-To: <4B3F2B59.8000700@poggs.co.uk>
References: <4B3F2B59.8000700@poggs.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4f5cdb8b-068e-4b0c-803a-7fd0ebb57ef7@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

On Jan 2, 5:17?am, Peter Hicks <peter.hi... at poggs.co.uk> wrote:
>
> How best should I tackle this? ?Where should I put the YAML files and is
> there any functionality in RSpec that will help? ?Should I roll my own
> "load test data" code and present that to the test code?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Peter

Hi Peter,

Have you read about fixtures? It sounds like just what you're looking
for.

Peace,
Phillip

From peter.hicks at poggs.co.uk  Sat Jan  2 17:12:03 2010
From: peter.hicks at poggs.co.uk (Peter Hicks)
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 22:12:03 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Loading numerous data structures from YAML files
In-Reply-To: <4f5cdb8b-068e-4b0c-803a-7fd0ebb57ef7@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
References: <4B3F2B59.8000700@poggs.co.uk>
	<4f5cdb8b-068e-4b0c-803a-7fd0ebb57ef7@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <4B3FC4B3.5080001@poggs.co.uk>

Hi Phillip

Phillip Koebbe wrote:

> Have you read about fixtures? It sounds like just what you're looking
> for.

I'm using fixtures already - they're great.  I can't find a way to load 
a specific fixture in to a table.  If I could do that, I could load a 
set of data, run the code, check the results, and repeat again for the 
next test.


Peter

From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Sat Jan  2 17:50:02 2010
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:50:02 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] more verbosity for be_an?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001021335m326fda84jca91d57962a70182@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d29f3b75-b741-4da3-957b-fafb3fcc39c8@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0912301219l43937dc6he78256e600eeeb30@mail.gmail.com>
	<bed002bc-7f41-4e4f-8f74-dc546df76c68@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<88fd8ddc1001021323o5537de65x8519b91c867acc69@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001021335m326fda84jca91d57962a70182@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deb2337a1001021450i24c8297fn1600d084edb1c219@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 4:35 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Premdas <apremdas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/12/30 rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> > What about something like:
>>> >
>>> > ? expected #<Class:2158174640> => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum
>>> >
>>> > That is more aligned with other failure messages. WDYT?
>>>
>>> I quite like it.
>>> In this instance it was
>>>
>>> 3.class.should be_a Fixnum # fails
>>>
>>> I suppose it would be something like
>>> expected #<Class:Fixnum> => Class to be a kind of Fixnum
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> > And just out of curiosity, Roger, what's your use case? ?I can't
>>> > remember ever using be_a/be_an, at least not in any code that has survived.
>>>
>>> The very first test I thought up was "this method should return an
>>> integer" so kind of a basic test for a not yet existent method.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't this a bit anti-ruby though. Surely the things we should be testing
>> is that the object exists, responds to certain messages and gives certain
>> values back for those messages. Thinking about types is so Java, C++ :-)
>
> Generally speaking, you're correct, but there are cases where this is
> valuable - like if you're spec'ing a factory in a lib for others to use,
> etc.

However, I need to point out that

although

1.should be_a Fixnum

that

1.class.should_not be_a Fixnum

because

1.class == Fixnum which is after all a Class, and not a Fixnum itself.


-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jan  2 18:49:39 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:49:39 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] more verbosity for be_an?
In-Reply-To: <deb2337a1001021450i24c8297fn1600d084edb1c219@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d29f3b75-b741-4da3-957b-fafb3fcc39c8@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0912301219l43937dc6he78256e600eeeb30@mail.gmail.com>
	<bed002bc-7f41-4e4f-8f74-dc546df76c68@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<88fd8ddc1001021323o5537de65x8519b91c867acc69@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001021335m326fda84jca91d57962a70182@mail.gmail.com>
	<deb2337a1001021450i24c8297fn1600d084edb1c219@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001021549w1bf09fb7o59d0aa12bf74101b@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 4:35 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Premdas <apremdas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2009/12/30 rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> > What about something like:
> >>> >
> >>> >   expected #<Class:2158174640> => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum
> >>> >
> >>> > That is more aligned with other failure messages. WDYT?
> >>>
> >>> I quite like it.
> >>> In this instance it was
> >>>
> >>> 3.class.should be_a Fixnum # fails
> >>>
> >>> I suppose it would be something like
> >>> expected #<Class:Fixnum> => Class to be a kind of Fixnum
> >>>
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >>> > And just out of curiosity, Roger, what's your use case?  I can't
> >>> > remember ever using be_a/be_an, at least not in any code that has
> survived.
> >>>
> >>> The very first test I thought up was "this method should return an
> >>> integer" so kind of a basic test for a not yet existent method.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Isn't this a bit anti-ruby though. Surely the things we should be
> testing
> >> is that the object exists, responds to certain messages and gives
> certain
> >> values back for those messages. Thinking about types is so Java, C++ :-)
> >
> > Generally speaking, you're correct, but there are cases where this is
> > valuable - like if you're spec'ing a factory in a lib for others to use,
> > etc.
>
> However, I need to point out that
>
> although
>
> 1.should be_a Fixnum
>
> that
>
> 1.class.should_not be_a Fixnum
>
> because
>
> 1.class == Fixnum which is after all a Class, and not a Fixnum itself.
>

Right - the initial problem that Roger was reporting was that
"1.class.should be_a(Fixnum)" produced a failure message wasn't that
helpful, not that it failed to fail :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100102/82359dd9/attachment.html>

From rogerdpack at gmail.com  Sat Jan  2 21:43:14 2010
From: rogerdpack at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 18:43:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] more verbosity for be_an?
In-Reply-To: <88fd8ddc1001021323o5537de65x8519b91c867acc69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d29f3b75-b741-4da3-957b-fafb3fcc39c8@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0912301219l43937dc6he78256e600eeeb30@mail.gmail.com> 
	<bed002bc-7f41-4e4f-8f74-dc546df76c68@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> 
	<88fd8ddc1001021323o5537de65x8519b91c867acc69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <67e65dc5-321e-4959-816a-7bdd091026e1@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>

> > The very first test I thought up was "this method should return an
> > integer" so kind of a basic test for a not yet existent method.
>
> Isn't this a bit anti-ruby though. Surely the things we should be testing is
> that the object exists, responds to certain messages and gives certain
> values back for those messages. Thinking about types is so Java, C++ :-)

Yeah, though it's a bit hard when it's supposed to return the pid of
some external process :)

-r

From apremdas at gmail.com  Sun Jan  3 16:29:29 2010
From: apremdas at gmail.com (Andrew Premdas)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 21:29:29 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] more verbosity for be_an?
In-Reply-To: <67e65dc5-321e-4959-816a-7bdd091026e1@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
References: <d29f3b75-b741-4da3-957b-fafb3fcc39c8@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0912301219l43937dc6he78256e600eeeb30@mail.gmail.com>
	<bed002bc-7f41-4e4f-8f74-dc546df76c68@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<88fd8ddc1001021323o5537de65x8519b91c867acc69@mail.gmail.com>
	<67e65dc5-321e-4959-816a-7bdd091026e1@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <88fd8ddc1001031329hf205636lff2c3c889e3166e5@mail.gmail.com>

2010/1/3 rogerdpack <rogerdpack at gmail.com>

> > > The very first test I thought up was "this method should return an
> > > integer" so kind of a basic test for a not yet existent method.
> >
> > Isn't this a bit anti-ruby though. Surely the things we should be testing
> is
> > that the object exists, responds to certain messages and gives certain
> > values back for those messages. Thinking about types is so Java, C++ :-)
>
> Yeah, though it's a bit hard when it's supposed to return the pid of
> some external process :)
>
>
Well your pid could be a string or an integer, or even some  a bizarre
proprietary un-docomented PID construct from planet foo . But as far as Ruby
is concerned you'll be getting back an object thats for sure, and anything
else is completely up in the air. However as soon as you start specifying
that a Fixnum should be returned, then you've removed the possibility of
receiving a string or a bizarre proprietary un-docomented PID construct from
planet foo. This is very anti-ruby (its a dynamic language). And it means
that your method will have to do all sorts of type conversion rubbish to go
from String, 'construct to Fixnum to pass your test.

In ruby all your interested in is that you get something that responds to
to_s (to_i) and gives you a suitable value

-r
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100103/4c3fb91a/attachment.html>

From apremdas at gmail.com  Sun Jan  3 16:39:41 2010
From: apremdas at gmail.com (Andrew Premdas)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 21:39:41 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] more verbosity for be_an?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001021335m326fda84jca91d57962a70182@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d29f3b75-b741-4da3-957b-fafb3fcc39c8@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0912301219l43937dc6he78256e600eeeb30@mail.gmail.com>
	<bed002bc-7f41-4e4f-8f74-dc546df76c68@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<88fd8ddc1001021323o5537de65x8519b91c867acc69@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001021335m326fda84jca91d57962a70182@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <88fd8ddc1001031339l7ab8fe76p76f6b1ba64ff5327@mail.gmail.com>

2010/1/2 David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>

>
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Premdas <apremdas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2009/12/30 rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com>
>>
>> > What about something like:
>>> >
>>> >   expected #<Class:2158174640> => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum
>>> >
>>> > That is more aligned with other failure messages. WDYT?
>>>
>>> I quite like it.
>>> In this instance it was
>>>
>>> 3.class.should be_a Fixnum # fails
>>>
>>> I suppose it would be something like
>>> expected #<Class:Fixnum> => Class to be a kind of Fixnum
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> > And just out of curiosity, Roger, what's your use case?  I can't
>>> remember ever using be_a/be_an, at least not in any code that has survived.
>>>
>>> The very first test I thought up was "this method should return an
>>> integer" so kind of a basic test for a not yet existent method.
>>>
>>>
>> Isn't this a bit anti-ruby though. Surely the things we should be testing
>> is that the object exists, responds to certain messages and gives certain
>> values back for those messages. Thinking about types is so Java, C++ :-)
>>
>
> Generally speaking, you're correct, but there are cases where this is
> valuable - like if you're spec'ing a factory in a lib for others to use,
> etc.
>
>
I don't think those cases apply to this thread (judging from its context),
but I can see benefits from the improved error message that may result from
this discussion.

Andrew


>
>>
>> all best
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>>  -r
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100103/dc72d456/attachment-0001.html>

From timo.roessner at googlemail.com  Sun Jan  3 19:56:26 2010
From: timo.roessner at googlemail.com (jollyroger)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 16:56:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] disabling before filters in rspec?
Message-ID: <d1d505ff-1a10-4a00-80ac-01e86f9122c5@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>

Hey guys,

i have this before-filter in my application-controller:

  def login_required
    if !current_user
      redirect_to join_welcome_path and return
    end
  end

This before-filter is prepended before all other before-filters in my
application_controller.rb like this

 prepend_before_filter :login_required,

Now i want  to test  a controller which should only be accessible if
the user is logged in like that:

  describe "new action" do

    describe "before-filter requirements are not met" do

      before(:each) do
        activate_authlogic
      end

      it "should redirect to join_welcome_path if not logged in" do
        controller.stub(:login_required).and_return(false)
        get :new
        response.should redirect_to(join_welcome_path)
       end

The thing is, I would have expected this spec to pass - a call to
"new" invokes the login-required before-filter which redirects to the
join_welcome_path.

Instead i get:

NoMethodError in 'Shopping::PaymentsController new action before-
filter requirements are not met should redirect to join_welcome_path
if not logged in'
undefined method `current_cart_size' for nil:NilClass

which is from a before-filter which is triggered _after_ the login-
required before-filter.

How do I even get there?
As far as I understood the docs, this line:

  controller.stub(:login_required).and_return(false)

should cause a redirect, so how do i even get to subsequent before-
filters?

In a nutshell:

Why do I even reach subsequent before-filters?
What am I doing wrong here?

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 05:20:39 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 04:20:39 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] disabling before filters in rspec?
In-Reply-To: <d1d505ff-1a10-4a00-80ac-01e86f9122c5@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <d1d505ff-1a10-4a00-80ac-01e86f9122c5@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001040220h790a7c64m6f14cf3f7ad5c688@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:56 PM, jollyroger <timo.roessner at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> i have this before-filter in my application-controller:
>
>  def login_required
>    if !current_user
>      redirect_to join_welcome_path and return
>    end
>  end
>
> This before-filter is prepended before all other before-filters in my
> application_controller.rb like this
>
>  prepend_before_filter :login_required,
>
> Now i want  to test  a controller which should only be accessible if
> the user is logged in like that:
>
>  describe "new action" do
>
>    describe "before-filter requirements are not met" do
>
>      before(:each) do
>        activate_authlogic
>      end
>
>      it "should redirect to join_welcome_path if not logged in" do
>        controller.stub(:login_required).and_return(false)
>        get :new
>        response.should redirect_to(join_welcome_path)
>       end
>
> The thing is, I would have expected this spec to pass - a call to
> "new" invokes the login-required before-filter which redirects to the
> join_welcome_path.
>
> Instead i get:
>
> NoMethodError in 'Shopping::PaymentsController new action before-
> filter requirements are not met should redirect to join_welcome_path
> if not logged in'
> undefined method `current_cart_size' for nil:NilClass
>
> which is from a before-filter which is triggered _after_ the login-
> required before-filter.
>
> How do I even get there?
> As far as I understood the docs, this line:
>
>  controller.stub(:login_required).and_return(false)
>
> should cause a redirect,


That is not correct. That line completely replaces the login_required()
method with a stub that returns false. The code in the real login_required()
method is not executed at all, and therefore the redirect does not happen.


> so how do i even get to subsequent before-
> filters?


Filters only halt execution if they invoke a redirect or return. In this
case, because the filter is stubbed and the redirect is never called,
execution continues.

In a nutshell:
>
> Why do I even reach subsequent before-filters?
> What am I doing wrong here?
>

You have a couple of options here, but I think the simplest thing would be
to stub current_user instead of login_required:

it "should redirect to join_welcome_path if not logged in" do
  controller.stub(:current_user).and_return(nil)
  get :new
  response.should redirect_to(join_welcome_path)
end

HTH,
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100104/a1877ee5/attachment.html>

From ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 05:33:38 2010
From: ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com (Ijonas Kisselbach)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:33:38 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Question about structuring specs
Message-ID: <510d57f61001040233m562f137du1e1ca16fa9f75714@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm struggling with structuring my specs describing a large process in my
app. There are multiple paths of execution through that process each of
which I'm trying to describe using a different rspec context, eg.

describe Violation do
   context ", when nothing has changed since the last run"
   context ", when new content has been created, but policies remain the
same"
   context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the same"
end

Each of the three scenarios/context above have got a bunch of "it should..."
blocks in it which in turn contain a whole bunch of should_receives and
should_not_receives on various mocked objects, thereby exercising the
functionality of the large process.

I would like the context to read as follows:

context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the same" do
   it "should create the new policy" do
      # a whole bunch of expectations testing the policy creation part of
the process
   end
   it "should create a new violation and location" do
     # a whole bunch of expectations testing the violation creation part of
the process
   end
   it "should resolve previous violations" do
     # a whole bunch of expections testing retrieval of previous violations
and performing updates on them
   end
  ....
end

The problem is: if I compartmentalize my expectations into the individual
it-should-blocks then something will fail in the execution of the large
process, typically caused by a mock not being setup. If I lump all my
expectations in the before(:each)-block then the whole thing springs to
life, but I lose my compartmentalization of the specs and the whole thing
becomes unreadable.

I guess I'm looking for help and advice on how best combat the lumping of
expectations into the before-block. Should I separate my stubbing from my
expectations ?

Many thanks for your advice.

(I'm using rspec 1.2.9 and Rails 2.2.2 on OSX)

Regards,
Ijonas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100104/4a547f08/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 06:16:14 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 05:16:14 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Question about structuring specs
In-Reply-To: <510d57f61001040233m562f137du1e1ca16fa9f75714@mail.gmail.com>
References: <510d57f61001040233m562f137du1e1ca16fa9f75714@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001040316k40c050ado361175883a69ea6e@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Ijonas Kisselbach <
ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm struggling with structuring my specs describing a large process in my
> app. There are multiple paths of execution through that process each of
> which I'm trying to describe using a different rspec context, eg.
>
> describe Violation do
>    context ", when nothing has changed since the last run"
>    context ", when new content has been created, but policies remain the
> same"
>    context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the
> same"
> end
>
> Each of the three scenarios/context above have got a bunch of "it
> should..." blocks in it which in turn contain a whole bunch of
> should_receives and should_not_receives on various mocked objects, thereby
> exercising the functionality of the large process.
>
> I would like the context to read as follows:
>
> context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the same"
> do
>    it "should create the new policy" do
>       # a whole bunch of expectations testing the policy creation part of
> the process
>    end
>    it "should create a new violation and location" do
>      # a whole bunch of expectations testing the violation creation part of
> the process
>    end
>    it "should resolve previous violations" do
>      # a whole bunch of expections testing retrieval of previous violations
> and performing updates on them
>    end
>   ....
> end
>
> The problem is: if I compartmentalize my expectations into the individual
> it-should-blocks then something will fail in the execution of the large
> process, typically caused by a mock not being setup. If I lump all my
> expectations in the before(:each)-block then the whole thing springs to
> life, but I lose my compartmentalization of the specs and the whole thing
> becomes unreadable.
>
> I guess I'm looking for help and advice on how best combat the lumping of
> expectations into the before-block. Should I separate my stubbing from my
> expectations ?
>
> Many thanks for your advice.
>

I'd need to see the actual code to respond in any precise way here, but
generally, it sounds like you're specifying too much about the
implementation rather than the outcomes. What happens if you eliminate all
of the mocks in these examples and just have expectations like
"Policy.find(@policy_id).should_not be_nil"?

David


>
> (I'm using rspec 1.2.9 and Rails 2.2.2 on OSX)
>
> Regards,
> Ijonas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100104/c4d5ccbd/attachment.html>

From timo.roessner at googlemail.com  Mon Jan  4 06:20:41 2010
From: timo.roessner at googlemail.com (jollyroger)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 03:20:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] disabling before filters in rspec?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001040220h790a7c64m6f14cf3f7ad5c688@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1d505ff-1a10-4a00-80ac-01e86f9122c5@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe1001040220h790a7c64m6f14cf3f7ad5c688@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <287fc8e0-b61d-4ca0-ba09-1ff5e4567790@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

Hi David,

well, the way you put it it all sounds totally logical...:-)

Thanks a lot for the suggestions, I guess I need to improve my
specs....

On Jan 4, 11:20?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:56 PM, jollyroger <timo.roess... at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hey guys,
>
> > i have this before-filter in my application-controller:
>
> > ?def login_required
> > ? ?if !current_user
> > ? ? ?redirect_to join_welcome_path and return
> > ? ?end
> > ?end
>
> > This before-filter is prepended before all other before-filters in my
> > application_controller.rb like this
>
> > ?prepend_before_filter :login_required,
>
> > Now i want ?to test ?a controller which should only be accessible if
> > the user is logged in like that:
>
> > ?describe "new action" do
>
> > ? ?describe "before-filter requirements are not met" do
>
> > ? ? ?before(:each) do
> > ? ? ? ?activate_authlogic
> > ? ? ?end
>
> > ? ? ?it "should redirect to join_welcome_path if not logged in" do
> > ? ? ? ?controller.stub(:login_required).and_return(false)
> > ? ? ? ?get :new
> > ? ? ? ?response.should redirect_to(join_welcome_path)
> > ? ? ? end
>
> > The thing is, I would have expected this spec to pass - a call to
> > "new" invokes the login-required before-filter which redirects to the
> > join_welcome_path.
>
> > Instead i get:
>
> > NoMethodError in 'Shopping::PaymentsController new action before-
> > filter requirements are not met should redirect to join_welcome_path
> > if not logged in'
> > undefined method `current_cart_size' for nil:NilClass
>
> > which is from a before-filter which is triggered _after_ the login-
> > required before-filter.
>
> > How do I even get there?
> > As far as I understood the docs, this line:
>
> > ?controller.stub(:login_required).and_return(false)
>
> > should cause a redirect,
>
> That is not correct. That line completely replaces the login_required()
> method with a stub that returns false. The code in the real login_required()
> method is not executed at all, and therefore the redirect does not happen.
>
> > so how do i even get to subsequent before-
> > filters?
>
> Filters only halt execution if they invoke a redirect or return. In this
> case, because the filter is stubbed and the redirect is never called,
> execution continues.
>
> In a nutshell:
>
>
>
> > Why do I even reach subsequent before-filters?
> > What am I doing wrong here?
>
> You have a couple of options here, but I think the simplest thing would be
> to stub current_user instead of login_required:
>
> it "should redirect to join_welcome_path if not logged in" do
> ? controller.stub(:current_user).and_return(nil)
> ? get :new
> ? response.should redirect_to(join_welcome_path)
> end
>
> HTH,
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 06:26:42 2010
From: ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com (Ijonas Kisselbach)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:26:42 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Question about structuring specs
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001040316k40c050ado361175883a69ea6e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <510d57f61001040233m562f137du1e1ca16fa9f75714@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001040316k40c050ado361175883a69ea6e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <510d57f61001040326w70db3372pca9ce80b8cc8f9f7@mail.gmail.com>

Hi David,

I see your point about concentrating on outcomes rather than implementation.
I suppose who cares about implementation, its the effect code on the "state
of the world" that is important.

Here's an unmodified sample:
  context ", when a new policy is activated on unchanged content" do
    before(:each) do
      setup_common_mocks
    end

    it "should create a new policy, the new violation and location, resolve
previous violations, recalculate location MD5, and refresh caches" do
      # content hasn't changed
      @content = mock(:content, :content_md5 => "84290324908230948",
:most_recent_violations => [mock(:violation_mr, :update_folder_count =>
nil)])
      @content_descriptor = mock(:content_descriptor, :contents =>
[@content], :most_recent_content => @content, :folder => mock(:folder))

ContentDescriptor.should_receive(:by_path_md5_and_site).once.and_return([@content_descriptor])


      # Policy is new, gets created once
      Policy.should_receive(:find_by_account_category_and_name).once

PolicyCategory.should_receive(:find_by_account_and_name).once.and_return(mock(:policy_category))
      Policy.should_receive(:create!).once.and_return(mock(:policy))

      # below are the changes affected
      Violation.should_receive(:resolve_violations).once

Violation.should_receive(:recalculate_violation_md5).once.and_return(10)

Violation.should_receive(:find_by_content_id_and_policy_id).once.and_return(nil)
      violation = mock(:new_violation1, :location_md5= => nil, :save =>
true)
      Violation.should_receive(:new).once.and_return(violation)
      violation.should_receive(:save).once

      Location.should_receive(:create!).once.and_return(mock(:location1))

      @content.should_receive(:most_recent_violations=).once
      @content.should_receive(:unresolved_violation_count=).once
      @content.should_receive(:save).once
      CacheMaintenance.should_receive(:remove_folder_cache_keys).twice
      record
    end

  end

I'm going to try and refactor the specs so that anything that doesn't
directly modify state of the app is removed.

Thanks,
Ijonas.

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:16 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Ijonas Kisselbach <
> ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm struggling with structuring my specs describing a large process in my
>> app. There are multiple paths of execution through that process each of
>> which I'm trying to describe using a different rspec context, eg.
>>
>> describe Violation do
>>    context ", when nothing has changed since the last run"
>>    context ", when new content has been created, but policies remain the
>> same"
>>    context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the
>> same"
>> end
>>
>> Each of the three scenarios/context above have got a bunch of "it
>> should..." blocks in it which in turn contain a whole bunch of
>> should_receives and should_not_receives on various mocked objects, thereby
>> exercising the functionality of the large process.
>>
>> I would like the context to read as follows:
>>
>> context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the same"
>> do
>>    it "should create the new policy" do
>>       # a whole bunch of expectations testing the policy creation part of
>> the process
>>    end
>>    it "should create a new violation and location" do
>>      # a whole bunch of expectations testing the violation creation part
>> of the process
>>    end
>>    it "should resolve previous violations" do
>>      # a whole bunch of expections testing retrieval of previous
>> violations and performing updates on them
>>    end
>>   ....
>> end
>>
>> The problem is: if I compartmentalize my expectations into the individual
>> it-should-blocks then something will fail in the execution of the large
>> process, typically caused by a mock not being setup. If I lump all my
>> expectations in the before(:each)-block then the whole thing springs to
>> life, but I lose my compartmentalization of the specs and the whole thing
>> becomes unreadable.
>>
>> I guess I'm looking for help and advice on how best combat the lumping of
>> expectations into the before-block. Should I separate my stubbing from my
>> expectations ?
>>
>> Many thanks for your advice.
>>
>
> I'd need to see the actual code to respond in any precise way here, but
> generally, it sounds like you're specifying too much about the
> implementation rather than the outcomes. What happens if you eliminate all
> of the mocks in these examples and just have expectations like
> "Policy.find(@policy_id).should_not be_nil"?
>
> David
>
>
>>
>> (I'm using rspec 1.2.9 and Rails 2.2.2 on OSX)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ijonas.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100104/b87d80b3/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 07:56:09 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 06:56:09 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Question about structuring specs
In-Reply-To: <510d57f61001040326w70db3372pca9ce80b8cc8f9f7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <510d57f61001040233m562f137du1e1ca16fa9f75714@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001040316k40c050ado361175883a69ea6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<510d57f61001040326w70db3372pca9ce80b8cc8f9f7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001040456s5cc46a4and2a2c23bb7ca94a4@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Ijonas Kisselbach <
ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I see your point about concentrating on outcomes rather than
> implementation. I suppose who cares about implementation, its the effect
> code on the "state of the world" that is important.
>
> Here's an unmodified sample:
>   context ", when a new policy is activated on unchanged content" do
>     before(:each) do
>       setup_common_mocks
>     end
>
>     it "should create a new policy, the new violation and location, resolve
> previous violations, recalculate location MD5, and refresh caches" do
>       # content hasn't changed
>       @content = mock(:content, :content_md5 => "84290324908230948",
> :most_recent_violations => [mock(:violation_mr, :update_folder_count =>
> nil)])
>       @content_descriptor = mock(:content_descriptor, :contents =>
> [@content], :most_recent_content => @content, :folder => mock(:folder))
>
> ContentDescriptor.should_receive(:by_path_md5_and_site).once.and_return([@content_descriptor])
>
>
>       # Policy is new, gets created once
>       Policy.should_receive(:find_by_account_category_and_name).once
>
> PolicyCategory.should_receive(:find_by_account_and_name).once.and_return(mock(:policy_category))
>       Policy.should_receive(:create!).once.and_return(mock(:policy))
>
>       # below are the changes affected
>       Violation.should_receive(:resolve_violations).once
>
> Violation.should_receive(:recalculate_violation_md5).once.and_return(10)
>
> Violation.should_receive(:find_by_content_id_and_policy_id).once.and_return(nil)
>       violation = mock(:new_violation1, :location_md5= => nil, :save =>
> true)
>       Violation.should_receive(:new).once.and_return(violation)
>       violation.should_receive(:save).once
>
>       Location.should_receive(:create!).once.and_return(mock(:location1))
>
>       @content.should_receive(:most_recent_violations=).once
>       @content.should_receive(:unresolved_violation_count=).once
>       @content.should_receive(:save).once
>       CacheMaintenance.should_receive(:remove_folder_cache_keys).twice
>       record
>     end
>
>   end
>
> I'm going to try and refactor the specs so that anything that doesn't
> directly modify state of the app is removed.
>

Why are you mocking so much here? Why not set up the db in a known state,
invoke the action you want to invoke (record???) and set expectations about
the outcomes? If you're concerned about database access and speed, this is a
case where I think the benefits of just invoking the code outweighs the cost
of database access. I'm imagining something more like this:

context ", when a new policy is activated on unchanged content" do
  it "creates a new policy" do
    record
    # expect to find the policy by known attributes
    # something like this:
    #   Policy.find_by_account_category_and_name(....).should_not be_nil
  end

  it "creates a new violation" do
    record
    # same as the policy - find the Violation by known attributes
  end

  it "updates most_recent_violations" do
    record
    # query for most recent violations and expect the violation
    # to be found
  end

  it "updates the violation count" do
    expect { record }.to change {content.unresolved_violation_count}.by(1)
  end

  # etc, etc
end

Yes, this means that the process needs to happen more than once, but each
example becomes much easier to grok.

WDYT?

Thanks,
> Ijonas.
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:16 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Ijonas Kisselbach <
>> ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm struggling with structuring my specs describing a large process in my
>>> app. There are multiple paths of execution through that process each of
>>> which I'm trying to describe using a different rspec context, eg.
>>>
>>> describe Violation do
>>>    context ", when nothing has changed since the last run"
>>>    context ", when new content has been created, but policies remain the
>>> same"
>>>    context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the
>>> same"
>>> end
>>>
>>> Each of the three scenarios/context above have got a bunch of "it
>>> should..." blocks in it which in turn contain a whole bunch of
>>> should_receives and should_not_receives on various mocked objects, thereby
>>> exercising the functionality of the large process.
>>>
>>> I would like the context to read as follows:
>>>
>>> context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the same"
>>> do
>>>    it "should create the new policy" do
>>>       # a whole bunch of expectations testing the policy creation part of
>>> the process
>>>    end
>>>    it "should create a new violation and location" do
>>>      # a whole bunch of expectations testing the violation creation part
>>> of the process
>>>    end
>>>    it "should resolve previous violations" do
>>>      # a whole bunch of expections testing retrieval of previous
>>> violations and performing updates on them
>>>    end
>>>   ....
>>> end
>>>
>>> The problem is: if I compartmentalize my expectations into the individual
>>> it-should-blocks then something will fail in the execution of the large
>>> process, typically caused by a mock not being setup. If I lump all my
>>> expectations in the before(:each)-block then the whole thing springs to
>>> life, but I lose my compartmentalization of the specs and the whole thing
>>> becomes unreadable.
>>>
>>> I guess I'm looking for help and advice on how best combat the lumping of
>>> expectations into the before-block. Should I separate my stubbing from my
>>> expectations ?
>>>
>>> Many thanks for your advice.
>>>
>>
>> I'd need to see the actual code to respond in any precise way here, but
>> generally, it sounds like you're specifying too much about the
>> implementation rather than the outcomes. What happens if you eliminate all
>> of the mocks in these examples and just have expectations like
>> "Policy.find(@policy_id).should_not be_nil"?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>>
>>> (I'm using rspec 1.2.9 and Rails 2.2.2 on OSX)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ijonas.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100104/3cfeb4f2/attachment-0001.html>

From ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 08:06:15 2010
From: ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com (Ijonas Kisselbach)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:06:15 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Question about structuring specs
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001040456s5cc46a4and2a2c23bb7ca94a4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <510d57f61001040233m562f137du1e1ca16fa9f75714@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001040316k40c050ado361175883a69ea6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<510d57f61001040326w70db3372pca9ce80b8cc8f9f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001040456s5cc46a4and2a2c23bb7ca94a4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <510d57f61001040506k6f3b4a00w901bfc445b18b554@mail.gmail.com>

Hi David,

Thanks for the suggestions... Yes I am mocking to avoid DB access, but if
the cost is DB access vs. readability: I'll choose readability.

Would you use something like Factory Girl or Machinist to setup the DB? To
avoid too much mocking and to avoid old-skool fixtures.

Thanks for the help.

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:56 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Ijonas Kisselbach <
> ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I see your point about concentrating on outcomes rather than
>> implementation. I suppose who cares about implementation, its the effect
>> code on the "state of the world" that is important.
>>
>> Here's an unmodified sample:
>>   context ", when a new policy is activated on unchanged content" do
>>     before(:each) do
>>       setup_common_mocks
>>     end
>>
>>     it "should create a new policy, the new violation and location,
>> resolve previous violations, recalculate location MD5, and refresh caches"
>> do
>>       # content hasn't changed
>>       @content = mock(:content, :content_md5 => "84290324908230948",
>> :most_recent_violations => [mock(:violation_mr, :update_folder_count =>
>> nil)])
>>       @content_descriptor = mock(:content_descriptor, :contents =>
>> [@content], :most_recent_content => @content, :folder => mock(:folder))
>>
>> ContentDescriptor.should_receive(:by_path_md5_and_site).once.and_return([@content_descriptor])
>>
>>
>>       # Policy is new, gets created once
>>       Policy.should_receive(:find_by_account_category_and_name).once
>>
>> PolicyCategory.should_receive(:find_by_account_and_name).once.and_return(mock(:policy_category))
>>       Policy.should_receive(:create!).once.and_return(mock(:policy))
>>
>>       # below are the changes affected
>>       Violation.should_receive(:resolve_violations).once
>>
>> Violation.should_receive(:recalculate_violation_md5).once.and_return(10)
>>
>> Violation.should_receive(:find_by_content_id_and_policy_id).once.and_return(nil)
>>       violation = mock(:new_violation1, :location_md5= => nil, :save =>
>> true)
>>       Violation.should_receive(:new).once.and_return(violation)
>>       violation.should_receive(:save).once
>>
>>       Location.should_receive(:create!).once.and_return(mock(:location1))
>>
>>       @content.should_receive(:most_recent_violations=).once
>>       @content.should_receive(:unresolved_violation_count=).once
>>       @content.should_receive(:save).once
>>       CacheMaintenance.should_receive(:remove_folder_cache_keys).twice
>>       record
>>     end
>>
>>   end
>>
>> I'm going to try and refactor the specs so that anything that doesn't
>> directly modify state of the app is removed.
>>
>
> Why are you mocking so much here? Why not set up the db in a known state,
> invoke the action you want to invoke (record???) and set expectations about
> the outcomes? If you're concerned about database access and speed, this is a
> case where I think the benefits of just invoking the code outweighs the cost
> of database access. I'm imagining something more like this:
>
> context ", when a new policy is activated on unchanged content" do
>   it "creates a new policy" do
>     record
>     # expect to find the policy by known attributes
>     # something like this:
>     #   Policy.find_by_account_category_and_name(....).should_not be_nil
>   end
>
>   it "creates a new violation" do
>     record
>     # same as the policy - find the Violation by known attributes
>   end
>
>   it "updates most_recent_violations" do
>     record
>     # query for most recent violations and expect the violation
>     # to be found
>   end
>
>   it "updates the violation count" do
>     expect { record }.to change {content.unresolved_violation_count}.by(1)
>   end
>
>   # etc, etc
> end
>
> Yes, this means that the process needs to happen more than once, but each
> example becomes much easier to grok.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
>> Ijonas.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:16 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Ijonas Kisselbach <
>>> ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm struggling with structuring my specs describing a large process in
>>>> my app. There are multiple paths of execution through that process each of
>>>> which I'm trying to describe using a different rspec context, eg.
>>>>
>>>> describe Violation do
>>>>    context ", when nothing has changed since the last run"
>>>>    context ", when new content has been created, but policies remain the
>>>> same"
>>>>    context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the
>>>> same"
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> Each of the three scenarios/context above have got a bunch of "it
>>>> should..." blocks in it which in turn contain a whole bunch of
>>>> should_receives and should_not_receives on various mocked objects, thereby
>>>> exercising the functionality of the large process.
>>>>
>>>> I would like the context to read as follows:
>>>>
>>>> context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the
>>>> same" do
>>>>    it "should create the new policy" do
>>>>       # a whole bunch of expectations testing the policy creation part
>>>> of the process
>>>>    end
>>>>    it "should create a new violation and location" do
>>>>      # a whole bunch of expectations testing the violation creation part
>>>> of the process
>>>>    end
>>>>    it "should resolve previous violations" do
>>>>      # a whole bunch of expections testing retrieval of previous
>>>> violations and performing updates on them
>>>>    end
>>>>   ....
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> The problem is: if I compartmentalize my expectations into the
>>>> individual it-should-blocks then something will fail in the execution of the
>>>> large process, typically caused by a mock not being setup. If I lump all my
>>>> expectations in the before(:each)-block then the whole thing springs to
>>>> life, but I lose my compartmentalization of the specs and the whole thing
>>>> becomes unreadable.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'm looking for help and advice on how best combat the lumping
>>>> of expectations into the before-block. Should I separate my stubbing from my
>>>> expectations ?
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for your advice.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd need to see the actual code to respond in any precise way here, but
>>> generally, it sounds like you're specifying too much about the
>>> implementation rather than the outcomes. What happens if you eliminate all
>>> of the mocks in these examples and just have expectations like
>>> "Policy.find(@policy_id).should_not be_nil"?
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (I'm using rspec 1.2.9 and Rails 2.2.2 on OSX)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ijonas.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100104/e3095d81/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 08:08:30 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 07:08:30 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Question about structuring specs
In-Reply-To: <510d57f61001040506k6f3b4a00w901bfc445b18b554@mail.gmail.com>
References: <510d57f61001040233m562f137du1e1ca16fa9f75714@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001040316k40c050ado361175883a69ea6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<510d57f61001040326w70db3372pca9ce80b8cc8f9f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001040456s5cc46a4and2a2c23bb7ca94a4@mail.gmail.com>
	<510d57f61001040506k6f3b4a00w901bfc445b18b554@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001040508w75cdddefh396aeeb429ae68c1@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Ijonas Kisselbach <
ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Thanks for the suggestions... Yes I am mocking to avoid DB access, but if
> the cost is DB access vs. readability: I'll choose readability.
>
> Would you use something like Factory Girl or Machinist to setup the DB? To
> avoid too much mocking and to avoid old-skool fixtures.
>

YES!

Thanks for the help.
>

Assuming it was helpful, you're welcome.

Cheers,
David


>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:56 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Ijonas Kisselbach <
>> ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> I see your point about concentrating on outcomes rather than
>>> implementation. I suppose who cares about implementation, its the effect
>>> code on the "state of the world" that is important.
>>>
>>> Here's an unmodified sample:
>>>   context ", when a new policy is activated on unchanged content" do
>>>     before(:each) do
>>>       setup_common_mocks
>>>     end
>>>
>>>     it "should create a new policy, the new violation and location,
>>> resolve previous violations, recalculate location MD5, and refresh caches"
>>> do
>>>       # content hasn't changed
>>>       @content = mock(:content, :content_md5 => "84290324908230948",
>>> :most_recent_violations => [mock(:violation_mr, :update_folder_count =>
>>> nil)])
>>>       @content_descriptor = mock(:content_descriptor, :contents =>
>>> [@content], :most_recent_content => @content, :folder => mock(:folder))
>>>
>>> ContentDescriptor.should_receive(:by_path_md5_and_site).once.and_return([@content_descriptor])
>>>
>>>
>>>       # Policy is new, gets created once
>>>       Policy.should_receive(:find_by_account_category_and_name).once
>>>
>>> PolicyCategory.should_receive(:find_by_account_and_name).once.and_return(mock(:policy_category))
>>>       Policy.should_receive(:create!).once.and_return(mock(:policy))
>>>
>>>       # below are the changes affected
>>>       Violation.should_receive(:resolve_violations).once
>>>
>>> Violation.should_receive(:recalculate_violation_md5).once.and_return(10)
>>>
>>> Violation.should_receive(:find_by_content_id_and_policy_id).once.and_return(nil)
>>>       violation = mock(:new_violation1, :location_md5= => nil, :save =>
>>> true)
>>>       Violation.should_receive(:new).once.and_return(violation)
>>>       violation.should_receive(:save).once
>>>
>>>       Location.should_receive(:create!).once.and_return(mock(:location1))
>>>
>>>       @content.should_receive(:most_recent_violations=).once
>>>       @content.should_receive(:unresolved_violation_count=).once
>>>       @content.should_receive(:save).once
>>>       CacheMaintenance.should_receive(:remove_folder_cache_keys).twice
>>>       record
>>>     end
>>>
>>>   end
>>>
>>> I'm going to try and refactor the specs so that anything that doesn't
>>> directly modify state of the app is removed.
>>>
>>
>> Why are you mocking so much here? Why not set up the db in a known state,
>> invoke the action you want to invoke (record???) and set expectations about
>> the outcomes? If you're concerned about database access and speed, this is a
>> case where I think the benefits of just invoking the code outweighs the cost
>> of database access. I'm imagining something more like this:
>>
>> context ", when a new policy is activated on unchanged content" do
>>   it "creates a new policy" do
>>     record
>>     # expect to find the policy by known attributes
>>     # something like this:
>>     #   Policy.find_by_account_category_and_name(....).should_not be_nil
>>   end
>>
>>   it "creates a new violation" do
>>     record
>>     # same as the policy - find the Violation by known attributes
>>   end
>>
>>   it "updates most_recent_violations" do
>>     record
>>     # query for most recent violations and expect the violation
>>     # to be found
>>   end
>>
>>   it "updates the violation count" do
>>     expect { record }.to change {content.unresolved_violation_count}.by(1)
>>   end
>>
>>   # etc, etc
>> end
>>
>> Yes, this means that the process needs to happen more than once, but each
>> example becomes much easier to grok.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>> Ijonas.
>>>
>>>  On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:16 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Ijonas Kisselbach <
>>>> ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm struggling with structuring my specs describing a large process in
>>>>> my app. There are multiple paths of execution through that process each of
>>>>> which I'm trying to describe using a different rspec context, eg.
>>>>>
>>>>> describe Violation do
>>>>>    context ", when nothing has changed since the last run"
>>>>>    context ", when new content has been created, but policies remain
>>>>> the same"
>>>>>    context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the
>>>>> same"
>>>>> end
>>>>>
>>>>> Each of the three scenarios/context above have got a bunch of "it
>>>>> should..." blocks in it which in turn contain a whole bunch of
>>>>> should_receives and should_not_receives on various mocked objects, thereby
>>>>> exercising the functionality of the large process.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like the context to read as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the
>>>>> same" do
>>>>>    it "should create the new policy" do
>>>>>       # a whole bunch of expectations testing the policy creation part
>>>>> of the process
>>>>>    end
>>>>>    it "should create a new violation and location" do
>>>>>      # a whole bunch of expectations testing the violation creation
>>>>> part of the process
>>>>>    end
>>>>>    it "should resolve previous violations" do
>>>>>      # a whole bunch of expections testing retrieval of previous
>>>>> violations and performing updates on them
>>>>>    end
>>>>>   ....
>>>>> end
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is: if I compartmentalize my expectations into the
>>>>> individual it-should-blocks then something will fail in the execution of the
>>>>> large process, typically caused by a mock not being setup. If I lump all my
>>>>> expectations in the before(:each)-block then the whole thing springs to
>>>>> life, but I lose my compartmentalization of the specs and the whole thing
>>>>> becomes unreadable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I'm looking for help and advice on how best combat the lumping
>>>>> of expectations into the before-block. Should I separate my stubbing from my
>>>>> expectations ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks for your advice.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd need to see the actual code to respond in any precise way here, but
>>>> generally, it sounds like you're specifying too much about the
>>>> implementation rather than the outcomes. What happens if you eliminate all
>>>> of the mocks in these examples and just have expectations like
>>>> "Policy.find(@policy_id).should_not be_nil"?
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (I'm using rspec 1.2.9 and Rails 2.2.2 on OSX)
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Ijonas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100104/900ecc2b/attachment-0001.html>

From ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 08:21:22 2010
From: ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com (Ijonas Kisselbach)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:21:22 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Question about structuring specs
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001040508w75cdddefh396aeeb429ae68c1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <510d57f61001040233m562f137du1e1ca16fa9f75714@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001040316k40c050ado361175883a69ea6e@mail.gmail.com>
	<510d57f61001040326w70db3372pca9ce80b8cc8f9f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001040456s5cc46a4and2a2c23bb7ca94a4@mail.gmail.com>
	<510d57f61001040506k6f3b4a00w901bfc445b18b554@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001040508w75cdddefh396aeeb429ae68c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <510d57f61001040521g4850f551l2c5f083020dbe16c@mail.gmail.com>

Definitely helpful. Thanks, its much appreciated.

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:08 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Ijonas Kisselbach <
> ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions... Yes I am mocking to avoid DB access, but if
>> the cost is DB access vs. readability: I'll choose readability.
>>
>> Would you use something like Factory Girl or Machinist to setup the DB? To
>> avoid too much mocking and to avoid old-skool fixtures.
>>
>
> YES!
>
> Thanks for the help.
>>
>
> Assuming it was helpful, you're welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:56 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Ijonas Kisselbach <
>>> ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> I see your point about concentrating on outcomes rather than
>>>> implementation. I suppose who cares about implementation, its the effect
>>>> code on the "state of the world" that is important.
>>>>
>>>> Here's an unmodified sample:
>>>>   context ", when a new policy is activated on unchanged content" do
>>>>     before(:each) do
>>>>       setup_common_mocks
>>>>     end
>>>>
>>>>     it "should create a new policy, the new violation and location,
>>>> resolve previous violations, recalculate location MD5, and refresh caches"
>>>> do
>>>>       # content hasn't changed
>>>>       @content = mock(:content, :content_md5 => "84290324908230948",
>>>> :most_recent_violations => [mock(:violation_mr, :update_folder_count =>
>>>> nil)])
>>>>       @content_descriptor = mock(:content_descriptor, :contents =>
>>>> [@content], :most_recent_content => @content, :folder => mock(:folder))
>>>>
>>>> ContentDescriptor.should_receive(:by_path_md5_and_site).once.and_return([@content_descriptor])
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       # Policy is new, gets created once
>>>>       Policy.should_receive(:find_by_account_category_and_name).once
>>>>
>>>> PolicyCategory.should_receive(:find_by_account_and_name).once.and_return(mock(:policy_category))
>>>>       Policy.should_receive(:create!).once.and_return(mock(:policy))
>>>>
>>>>       # below are the changes affected
>>>>       Violation.should_receive(:resolve_violations).once
>>>>
>>>> Violation.should_receive(:recalculate_violation_md5).once.and_return(10)
>>>>
>>>> Violation.should_receive(:find_by_content_id_and_policy_id).once.and_return(nil)
>>>>       violation = mock(:new_violation1, :location_md5= => nil, :save =>
>>>> true)
>>>>       Violation.should_receive(:new).once.and_return(violation)
>>>>       violation.should_receive(:save).once
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Location.should_receive(:create!).once.and_return(mock(:location1))
>>>>
>>>>       @content.should_receive(:most_recent_violations=).once
>>>>       @content.should_receive(:unresolved_violation_count=).once
>>>>       @content.should_receive(:save).once
>>>>       CacheMaintenance.should_receive(:remove_folder_cache_keys).twice
>>>>       record
>>>>     end
>>>>
>>>>   end
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to try and refactor the specs so that anything that doesn't
>>>> directly modify state of the app is removed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you mocking so much here? Why not set up the db in a known state,
>>> invoke the action you want to invoke (record???) and set expectations about
>>> the outcomes? If you're concerned about database access and speed, this is a
>>> case where I think the benefits of just invoking the code outweighs the cost
>>> of database access. I'm imagining something more like this:
>>>
>>> context ", when a new policy is activated on unchanged content" do
>>>   it "creates a new policy" do
>>>     record
>>>     # expect to find the policy by known attributes
>>>     # something like this:
>>>     #   Policy.find_by_account_category_and_name(....).should_not be_nil
>>>   end
>>>
>>>   it "creates a new violation" do
>>>     record
>>>     # same as the policy - find the Violation by known attributes
>>>   end
>>>
>>>   it "updates most_recent_violations" do
>>>     record
>>>     # query for most recent violations and expect the violation
>>>     # to be found
>>>   end
>>>
>>>   it "updates the violation count" do
>>>     expect { record }.to change
>>> {content.unresolved_violation_count}.by(1)
>>>   end
>>>
>>>   # etc, etc
>>> end
>>>
>>> Yes, this means that the process needs to happen more than once, but each
>>> example becomes much easier to grok.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ijonas.
>>>>
>>>>  On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:16 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Ijonas Kisselbach <
>>>>> ijonas.kisselbach at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm struggling with structuring my specs describing a large process in
>>>>>> my app. There are multiple paths of execution through that process each of
>>>>>> which I'm trying to describe using a different rspec context, eg.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> describe Violation do
>>>>>>    context ", when nothing has changed since the last run"
>>>>>>    context ", when new content has been created, but policies remain
>>>>>> the same"
>>>>>>    context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the
>>>>>> same"
>>>>>> end
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each of the three scenarios/context above have got a bunch of "it
>>>>>> should..." blocks in it which in turn contain a whole bunch of
>>>>>> should_receives and should_not_receives on various mocked objects, thereby
>>>>>> exercising the functionality of the large process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like the context to read as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> context ", when new policies are activated, but content remains the
>>>>>> same" do
>>>>>>    it "should create the new policy" do
>>>>>>       # a whole bunch of expectations testing the policy creation part
>>>>>> of the process
>>>>>>    end
>>>>>>    it "should create a new violation and location" do
>>>>>>      # a whole bunch of expectations testing the violation creation
>>>>>> part of the process
>>>>>>    end
>>>>>>    it "should resolve previous violations" do
>>>>>>      # a whole bunch of expections testing retrieval of previous
>>>>>> violations and performing updates on them
>>>>>>    end
>>>>>>   ....
>>>>>> end
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is: if I compartmentalize my expectations into the
>>>>>> individual it-should-blocks then something will fail in the execution of the
>>>>>> large process, typically caused by a mock not being setup. If I lump all my
>>>>>> expectations in the before(:each)-block then the whole thing springs to
>>>>>> life, but I lose my compartmentalization of the specs and the whole thing
>>>>>> becomes unreadable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess I'm looking for help and advice on how best combat the lumping
>>>>>> of expectations into the before-block. Should I separate my stubbing from my
>>>>>> expectations ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks for your advice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd need to see the actual code to respond in any precise way here, but
>>>>> generally, it sounds like you're specifying too much about the
>>>>> implementation rather than the outcomes. What happens if you eliminate all
>>>>> of the mocks in these examples and just have expectations like
>>>>> "Policy.find(@policy_id).should_not be_nil"?
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I'm using rspec 1.2.9 and Rails 2.2.2 on OSX)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Ijonas.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100104/351820fe/attachment.html>

From tom at experthuman.com  Mon Jan  4 10:16:52 2010
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:16:52 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] 'Expected NoMethodError, got NameError'
In-Reply-To: <20091230210446.GS12080@malachai>
References: <20091230210446.GS12080@malachai>
Message-ID: <50CCC7C0-B6ED-48EC-8E63-716D9596F2E8@experthuman.com>

On 30 Dec 2009, at 21:04, Paul Hinze wrote:
> I'm fighting with this error messages that _only_ shows up in certain situations that I can't quite pin down

Sounds eerily familiar: http://yehudakatz.com/2010/01/02/the-craziest-fing-bug-ive-ever-seen/

Cheers,
-Tom

From hi at nicolassanguinetti.info  Mon Jan  4 14:16:52 2010
From: hi at nicolassanguinetti.info (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Sanguinetti?=)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:16:52 -0200
Subject: [rspec-users] "RESTful" controller specs in rails
Message-ID: <e30c8b941001041116x330186a7qb614c69f694a459e@mail.gmail.com>

So, what's the awesome sauce everyone is using for this? In the past
I've used shared behaviors, and rspec_on_rails_on_crack to solve all
the repetition in the controller specs, but I've been away from rspec
for a while, and the controller specs in the rails project I'm working
on are a mess. So? what's the best/recommended approach these days?

Cheers,
-foca

From apremdas at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 15:57:22 2010
From: apremdas at gmail.com (Andrew Premdas)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:57:22 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] 'Expected NoMethodError, got NameError'
In-Reply-To: <20091230210446.GS12080@malachai>
References: <20091230210446.GS12080@malachai>
Message-ID: <88fd8ddc1001041257p5acf8d11v4e0a7fbd1d8b7c63@mail.gmail.com>

2009/12/30 Paul Hinze <paul.t.hinze at gmail.com>

> Given this simple cucumber feature (related to another rspec bug I am
> working on):
>
>  http://gist.github.com/266335
>
> I'm fighting with this error messages that _only_ shows up in certain
> situations that I can't quite pin down (rake features breaks, individual
> cucumber run works, rake with debugger beforehand works...)
>
> > expected NoMethodError, got #<NameError: undefined local variable or
> method `nap' for Time:Class
> > ./features/step_definitions/stubs_dont_leak_steps.rb:10:in `/^nap time
> should not be defined$/'
> > features/either/stubs_dont_leak.feature:11:in `Then nap time should not
> be defined'
>
> I've tracked it down to this line:
>
> http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/blob/master/lib/spec/mocks/proxy.rb#L117


This method is really unpleasant, perhaps some standard refactorings to
remove the complex conditional conditions and remove the nested if's would
be useful first of all.


>
>  def message_received(sym, *args, &block)
>    expectation = find_matching_expectation(sym, *args)
>    stub = find_matching_method_stub(sym, *args)
>
>    if (stub && expectation && expectation.called_max_times?) || (stub &&
> !expectation)
>      if expectation = find_almost_matching_expectation(sym, *args)
>        expectation.advise(args, block) unless
> expectation.expected_messages_received?
>      end
>      stub.invoke(*args, &block)
>    elsif expectation
>      expectation.invoke(*args, &block)
>    elsif expectation = find_almost_matching_expectation(sym, *args)
>      expectation.advise(args, block) if null_object? unless
> expectation.expected_messages_received?
>      raise_unexpected_message_args_error(expectation, *args) unless
> (has_negative_expectation?(sym) or null_object?)
>    else
> -->   @target.__send__ :method_missing, sym, *args, &block
>    end
>  end
>
> My question is this... why do we fall back to method_missing here rather
> than a simple 'send' to the target?  I figure there is likely a reason,
> so if someone could help me understand I'll happily open up my
> expectation to should_raise(NameError) and move along. :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100104/721be99d/attachment-0001.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 16:00:29 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:00:29 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] 'Expected NoMethodError, got NameError'
In-Reply-To: <88fd8ddc1001041257p5acf8d11v4e0a7fbd1d8b7c63@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091230210446.GS12080@malachai>
	<88fd8ddc1001041257p5acf8d11v4e0a7fbd1d8b7c63@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001041300q2ebf4055q2c2c7c6fb48b54f3@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Premdas <apremdas at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/12/30 Paul Hinze <paul.t.hinze at gmail.com>
>
> Given this simple cucumber feature (related to another rspec bug I am
>> working on):
>>
>>  http://gist.github.com/266335
>>
>> I'm fighting with this error messages that _only_ shows up in certain
>> situations that I can't quite pin down (rake features breaks, individual
>> cucumber run works, rake with debugger beforehand works...)
>>
>> > expected NoMethodError, got #<NameError: undefined local variable or
>> method `nap' for Time:Class
>> > ./features/step_definitions/stubs_dont_leak_steps.rb:10:in `/^nap time
>> should not be defined$/'
>> > features/either/stubs_dont_leak.feature:11:in `Then nap time should not
>> be defined'
>>
>> I've tracked it down to this line:
>>
>>
>> http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/blob/master/lib/spec/mocks/proxy.rb#L117
>
>
> This method is really unpleasant, perhaps some standard refactorings to
> remove the complex conditional conditions and remove the nested if's would
> be useful first of all.
>

Agreed. Patches welcome!


>  def message_received(sym, *args, &block)
>>    expectation = find_matching_expectation(sym, *args)
>>    stub = find_matching_method_stub(sym, *args)
>>
>>    if (stub && expectation && expectation.called_max_times?) || (stub &&
>> !expectation)
>>      if expectation = find_almost_matching_expectation(sym, *args)
>>        expectation.advise(args, block) unless
>> expectation.expected_messages_received?
>>      end
>>      stub.invoke(*args, &block)
>>    elsif expectation
>>      expectation.invoke(*args, &block)
>>    elsif expectation = find_almost_matching_expectation(sym, *args)
>>      expectation.advise(args, block) if null_object? unless
>> expectation.expected_messages_received?
>>      raise_unexpected_message_args_error(expectation, *args) unless
>> (has_negative_expectation?(sym) or null_object?)
>>    else
>> -->   @target.__send__ :method_missing, sym, *args, &block
>>    end
>>  end
>>
>> My question is this... why do we fall back to method_missing here rather
>> than a simple 'send' to the target?  I figure there is likely a reason,
>> so if someone could help me understand I'll happily open up my
>> expectation to should_raise(NameError) and move along. :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Paul
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100104/7e2b2352/attachment.html>

From mailinglists at patmaddox.com  Mon Jan  4 17:46:20 2010
From: mailinglists at patmaddox.com (Pat Maddox)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:46:20 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] "RESTful" controller specs in rails
In-Reply-To: <e30c8b941001041116x330186a7qb614c69f694a459e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e30c8b941001041116x330186a7qb614c69f694a459e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FB7BABD2-8D94-43C4-875D-3E24172E4A4E@patmaddox.com>

I use resource_controller, and then don't need to write controller specs because it's all boiler-plate.  If I add any custom behavior that needs more focused testing than cucumber provides, I can just write a couple specs to cover it.

Pat



On Jan 4, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Nicol?s Sanguinetti wrote:

> So, what's the awesome sauce everyone is using for this? In the past
> I've used shared behaviors, and rspec_on_rails_on_crack to solve all
> the repetition in the controller specs, but I've been away from rspec
> for a while, and the controller specs in the rails project I'm working
> on are a mess. So? what's the best/recommended approach these days?
> 
> Cheers,
> -foca
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From tom at experthuman.com  Mon Jan  4 18:02:51 2010
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:02:51 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] "RESTful" controller specs in rails
In-Reply-To: <FB7BABD2-8D94-43C4-875D-3E24172E4A4E@patmaddox.com>
References: <e30c8b941001041116x330186a7qb614c69f694a459e@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB7BABD2-8D94-43C4-875D-3E24172E4A4E@patmaddox.com>
Message-ID: <DC826E58-28DE-437A-A5E6-3FFEC4E74EA6@experthuman.com>

On 4 Jan 2010, at 22:46, Pat Maddox wrote:
> I use resource_controller, and then don't need to write controller specs because it's all boiler-plate.  If I add any custom behavior that needs more focused testing than cucumber provides, I can just write a couple specs to cover it.

Ditto: I use resources_controller (note different name!), which already has comprehensive tests, and only write specs for any non-boilerplate behaviour which I add.

Cheers,
-Tom

From paul.t.hinze at gmail.com  Mon Jan  4 21:58:49 2010
From: paul.t.hinze at gmail.com (Paul Hinze)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:58:49 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Loading numerous data structures from YAML files
In-Reply-To: <4B3FC4B3.5080001@poggs.co.uk>
References: <4B3F2B59.8000700@poggs.co.uk>
	<4f5cdb8b-068e-4b0c-803a-7fd0ebb57ef7@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
	<4B3FC4B3.5080001@poggs.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20100105025849.GC6554@malachai>

Peter Hicks <peter.hicks at poggs.co.uk> on 2010-01-02 at 16:13:
> Hi Phillip
>
> Phillip Koebbe wrote:
>
>> Have you read about fixtures? It sounds like just what you're looking
>> for.
>
> I'm using fixtures already - they're great.  I can't find a way to load a 
> specific fixture in to a table.  If I could do that, I could load a set of 
> data, run the code, check the results, and repeat again for the next test.

My group has mostly moved off fixtures towards factory_girl, but we
still depend on a couple of tables' worth of data to get a basic
environment set up for some of our cucumber features.

For this I use the little-documented method that is used internally by
ActiveRecord::Fixtures called 'create_fixtures'.

> create_fixtures(fixtures_directory, table_names, class_names = {})
http://apidock.com/rails/Fixtures/create_fixtures/class

Since it accepts a directory first, you can store the YAML files
wherever you'd like, and load them when you choose -- in
spec/spec_helper.rb or in individual example groups if you wanted.

Here's a snippet from my features/support/env.rb to give you an idea:

  Fixtures.create_fixtures('test/fixtures', 'roles')
  Fixtures.create_fixtures('test/fixtures', 'role_members')
  Fixtures.create_fixtures('test/fixtures', 'rights')

Hope this helps!

Paul

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 03:38:37 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 02:38:37 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] 'Expected NoMethodError, got NameError'
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001041300q2ebf4055q2c2c7c6fb48b54f3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091230210446.GS12080@malachai>
	<88fd8ddc1001041257p5acf8d11v4e0a7fbd1d8b7c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001041300q2ebf4055q2c2c7c6fb48b54f3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001050038l38c71741pc931ac63fbd4c621@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:00 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>>>
>>> http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/blob/master/lib/spec/mocks/proxy.rb#L117
>>
>>
>> This method is really unpleasant, perhaps some standard refactorings to
>> remove the complex conditional conditions and remove the nested if's would
>> be useful first of all.
>>
>
http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/commit/386e3347ed7cecbb2ea3095909b93ac8c97bb638
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100105/43aaafae/attachment.html>

From matt-lists at reprocessed.org  Tue Jan  5 07:17:44 2010
From: matt-lists at reprocessed.org (Matt Patterson)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:17:44 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] describe "RSpec's documentation" do
In-Reply-To: <98A6AC6B-BECC-4564-AF04-C49429AC7C75@mattwynne.net>
References: <A3756A49-A10C-4138-8665-AAB730556A2B@gmail.com>
	<98A6AC6B-BECC-4564-AF04-C49429AC7C75@mattwynne.net>
Message-ID: <C6507183-6C14-41D1-8BB0-E0BF67FB63BF@reprocessed.org>

On 9 Nov 2009, at 22:03, Matt Wynne wrote:

> 
> On 6 Nov 2009, at 12:49, David Chelimsky wrote:
> 
>> In the long run, what I'd like is the following:
>> 
>> * Cucumber features that ship with RSpec become the authoritative end-user documentation. This is something that anybody can contribute to with patches, as it's all in files that ship with RSpec. I'd also like to use such an effort to push the envelope on Cucumber features as executable documentation. I think that with a little bit of work we could use the features to generate a website with meaningful organization/navigation. Is anybody already doing that?
> 
> +1
> 
> I had a little epiphany working on the wire protocol feature for cucumber[3]. We were trying to design the protocol via email and lighthouse ticket discussion, started using a wiki to document the desired protocol when I realised - why don't we just use the features!? I would like to see more people pushing Cucumber in this direction, and I think it would be interesting to consider adding mark-up to comments to allow us to build RDoc-style websites from a features folder.

I've been looking at the documentation again recently, and I'd be happy to start work on this, particularly if Matt W is wanting to look at the cucumber end since he's just up the road from me.

I'm very keen on the executable documentation aspects of this, and I did a whole load of work back in 2008 on this kind of stuff using RSpec, so I've got a bit of history here :-)

Matt


-- 
  Matt Patterson | Design & Code
  <matt at reprocessed org> | http://www.reprocessed.org/




From apremdas at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 08:35:25 2010
From: apremdas at gmail.com (Andrew Premdas)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:35:25 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] 'Expected NoMethodError, got NameError'
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001041300q2ebf4055q2c2c7c6fb48b54f3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091230210446.GS12080@malachai>
	<88fd8ddc1001041257p5acf8d11v4e0a7fbd1d8b7c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001041300q2ebf4055q2c2c7c6fb48b54f3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <88fd8ddc1001050535k1c24c30bl7022b43762a3a924@mail.gmail.com>

2010/1/4 David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>

> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Premdas <apremdas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2009/12/30 Paul Hinze <paul.t.hinze at gmail.com>
>>
>> Given this simple cucumber feature (related to another rspec bug I am
>>> working on):
>>>
>>>  http://gist.github.com/266335
>>>
>>> I'm fighting with this error messages that _only_ shows up in certain
>>> situations that I can't quite pin down (rake features breaks, individual
>>> cucumber run works, rake with debugger beforehand works...)
>>>
>>> > expected NoMethodError, got #<NameError: undefined local variable or
>>> method `nap' for Time:Class
>>> > ./features/step_definitions/stubs_dont_leak_steps.rb:10:in `/^nap time
>>> should not be defined$/'
>>> > features/either/stubs_dont_leak.feature:11:in `Then nap time should not
>>> be defined'
>>>
>>> I've tracked it down to this line:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/blob/master/lib/spec/mocks/proxy.rb#L117
>>
>>
>> This method is really unpleasant, perhaps some standard refactorings to
>> remove the complex conditional conditions and remove the nested if's would
>> be useful first of all.
>>
>
> Agreed. Patches welcome!
>

David,

I hope my comment didn't come out as sniping/bitchy/negative, and the
suggested refactorings were useful. Couldn't really make a patch as I don't
have the context to name things correctly.

Anyhow thanks once again for all your wonderful work on rspec and on this
mailing list it really is very much appreciated.

All best

Andrew


>
>
>>  def message_received(sym, *args, &block)
>>>    expectation = find_matching_expectation(sym, *args)
>>>    stub = find_matching_method_stub(sym, *args)
>>>
>>>    if (stub && expectation && expectation.called_max_times?) || (stub &&
>>> !expectation)
>>>      if expectation = find_almost_matching_expectation(sym, *args)
>>>        expectation.advise(args, block) unless
>>> expectation.expected_messages_received?
>>>      end
>>>      stub.invoke(*args, &block)
>>>    elsif expectation
>>>      expectation.invoke(*args, &block)
>>>    elsif expectation = find_almost_matching_expectation(sym, *args)
>>>      expectation.advise(args, block) if null_object? unless
>>> expectation.expected_messages_received?
>>>      raise_unexpected_message_args_error(expectation, *args) unless
>>> (has_negative_expectation?(sym) or null_object?)
>>>    else
>>> -->   @target.__send__ :method_missing, sym, *args, &block
>>>    end
>>>  end
>>>
>>> My question is this... why do we fall back to method_missing here rather
>>> than a simple 'send' to the target?  I figure there is likely a reason,
>>> so if someone could help me understand I'll happily open up my
>>> expectation to should_raise(NameError) and move along. :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Paul
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100105/93e13ce4/attachment-0001.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 11:16:50 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:16:50 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] 'Expected NoMethodError, got NameError'
In-Reply-To: <88fd8ddc1001050535k1c24c30bl7022b43762a3a924@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091230210446.GS12080@malachai>
	<88fd8ddc1001041257p5acf8d11v4e0a7fbd1d8b7c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001041300q2ebf4055q2c2c7c6fb48b54f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<88fd8ddc1001050535k1c24c30bl7022b43762a3a924@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001050816v2cff1df4ie05abed4bb0ba8e8@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Andrew Premdas <apremdas at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2010/1/4 David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Premdas <apremdas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/12/30 Paul Hinze <paul.t.hinze at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Given this simple cucumber feature (related to another rspec bug I am
>>>> working on):
>>>>
>>>>  http://gist.github.com/266335
>>>>
>>>> I'm fighting with this error messages that _only_ shows up in certain
>>>> situations that I can't quite pin down (rake features breaks, individual
>>>> cucumber run works, rake with debugger beforehand works...)
>>>>
>>>> > expected NoMethodError, got #<NameError: undefined local variable or
>>>> method `nap' for Time:Class
>>>> > ./features/step_definitions/stubs_dont_leak_steps.rb:10:in `/^nap time
>>>> should not be defined$/'
>>>> > features/either/stubs_dont_leak.feature:11:in `Then nap time should
>>>> not be defined'
>>>>
>>>> I've tracked it down to this line:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/blob/master/lib/spec/mocks/proxy.rb#L117
>>>
>>>
>>> This method is really unpleasant, perhaps some standard refactorings to
>>> remove the complex conditional conditions and remove the nested if's would
>>> be useful first of all.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. Patches welcome!
>>
>
> David,
>
> I hope my comment didn't come out as sniping/bitchy/negative,
>

Absolutely not! You were spot on.


> and the suggested refactorings were useful.
>

I learned a lot about that code going through it.


> Couldn't really make a patch as I don't have the context to name things
> correctly.
>

Understood. Hopefully that will improve over time.


> Anyhow thanks once again for all your wonderful work on rspec and on this
> mailing list it really is very much appreciated.
>

Thank you for saying so. Appreciation is always appreciated :)

Cheers,
David


>
> All best
>
> Andrew
>
>
>>
>>
>>>   def message_received(sym, *args, &block)
>>>>    expectation = find_matching_expectation(sym, *args)
>>>>    stub = find_matching_method_stub(sym, *args)
>>>>
>>>>    if (stub && expectation && expectation.called_max_times?) || (stub &&
>>>> !expectation)
>>>>      if expectation = find_almost_matching_expectation(sym, *args)
>>>>        expectation.advise(args, block) unless
>>>> expectation.expected_messages_received?
>>>>      end
>>>>      stub.invoke(*args, &block)
>>>>    elsif expectation
>>>>      expectation.invoke(*args, &block)
>>>>    elsif expectation = find_almost_matching_expectation(sym, *args)
>>>>      expectation.advise(args, block) if null_object? unless
>>>> expectation.expected_messages_received?
>>>>      raise_unexpected_message_args_error(expectation, *args) unless
>>>> (has_negative_expectation?(sym) or null_object?)
>>>>    else
>>>> -->   @target.__send__ :method_missing, sym, *args, &block
>>>>    end
>>>>  end
>>>>
>>>> My question is this... why do we fall back to method_missing here rather
>>>> than a simple 'send' to the target?  I figure there is likely a reason,
>>>> so if someone could help me understand I'll happily open up my
>>>> expectation to should_raise(NameError) and move along. :)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100105/febf186e/attachment.html>

From edvard.majakari at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 05:09:32 2010
From: edvard.majakari at gmail.com (Edvard Majakari)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 02:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] Adding stubs for an included argument
Message-ID: <ecf24b5b-8d2d-49ff-9296-fc87558639bc@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

Hi,

My scenario is as follows, and so far I have not found the clean way
to implement the following.

In a method I have a method called allowed_for?(*args) used as
follows:

...

if o.allowed_for?(:foo, :bar)
  #case a
elsif o.allowed_for(:quux, :bif)
  #case b
elsif o.allowed_for(:baz)
  #case c
else
  #case default
end


now in the spec, I'd like to say something like

obj.should_allow_for(:foo)
obj.stub!(:allowed_for? => false)

that is, if allowed_for? is called with varargs containing :foo it
should return true, false otherwise.

At the moment the only way I can make the spec to run is to create
exact expectation, which is a bit too tightly coupled to the
implementation:

obj.should_receive(:allowed_for?).with(:foo, :bar).and_return ...

another solution would wrap allow_for?(*args) into a single method
call without parameter names and stubbing the wrapper methods:

if o.fooey?
  #case a
elsif o.quuxy?
  #case b
elsif o.bazy?
  #case c
else
  #case default
end

but I don't like it - the rules are simple and the whole method is now
quite readable as it is. Creating one-line private methods would IMO
add superfluous cruft and reduce legibility.




From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 11:54:51 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:54:51 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Adding stubs for an included argument
In-Reply-To: <ecf24b5b-8d2d-49ff-9296-fc87558639bc@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <ecf24b5b-8d2d-49ff-9296-fc87558639bc@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001050854v6e3f8b31j6274ccc358f40bc3@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Edvard Majakari
<edvard.majakari at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> My scenario is as follows, and so far I have not found the clean way
> to implement the following.
>
> In a method I have a method called allowed_for?(*args) used as
> follows:
>
> ...
>
> if o.allowed_for?(:foo, :bar)
>  #case a
> elsif o.allowed_for(:quux, :bif)
>  #case b
> elsif o.allowed_for(:baz)
>  #case c
> else
>  #case default
> end
>
>
> now in the spec, I'd like to say something like
>
> obj.should_allow_for(:foo)
> obj.stub!(:allowed_for? => false)
>

Try this:

obj.stub(:allowed_for) {|*args| args.include?(:foo)}

HTH,
David


>
> that is, if allowed_for? is called with varargs containing :foo it
> should return true, false otherwise.
>
> At the moment the only way I can make the spec to run is to create
> exact expectation, which is a bit too tightly coupled to the
> implementation:
>
> obj.should_receive(:allowed_for?).with(:foo, :bar).and_return ...
>
> another solution would wrap allow_for?(*args) into a single method
> call without parameter names and stubbing the wrapper methods:
>
> if o.fooey?
>  #case a
> elsif o.quuxy?
>  #case b
> elsif o.bazy?
>  #case c
> else
>  #case default
> end
>
> but I don't like it - the rules are simple and the whole method is now
> quite readable as it is. Creating one-line private methods would IMO
> add superfluous cruft and reduce legibility.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100105/20a7e0ba/attachment.html>

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 12:36:53 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:36:53 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
Message-ID: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>

I'm trying to implement a base controller that other controllers descend 
from, and am having a bit of difficulty in testing the sole "feature" of 
the base controller.

http://gist.github.com/269544

In the "not redirecting when user is an admin" context, I keep getting 
an error that "no action responded to <whatever I try>". Obviously, 
there are no actions in this controller, nor should there be. I want to 
hit an action in a descendant controller and make sure that it goes through.

How do I do that?

Thanks,
Phillip

From mailinglists at patmaddox.com  Tue Jan  5 15:12:38 2010
From: mailinglists at patmaddox.com (Pat Maddox)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:12:38 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>

The spec has Admin::BaseController as the described type.  So of course it's going to test against that.  If you want to test a different class, you need to describe that instead!

On Jan 5, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Phillip Koebbe wrote:

> I'm trying to implement a base controller that other controllers descend from, and am having a bit of difficulty in testing the sole "feature" of the base controller.
> 
> http://gist.github.com/269544
> 
> In the "not redirecting when user is an admin" context, I keep getting an error that "no action responded to <whatever I try>". Obviously, there are no actions in this controller, nor should there be. I want to hit an action in a descendant controller and make sure that it goes through.
> 
> How do I do that?
> 
> Thanks,
> Phillip
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From matt at mattwynne.net  Tue Jan  5 14:46:18 2010
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:46:18 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A4CA8310-AF8C-4856-9409-88EBB1B249CE@mattwynne.net>

Subclass it in your spec with

class TestController < Admin::BaseController
    def index
    end
end

...then use the TestController in your tests for Admin::BaseController.

That might mean you'll need to add special routing for TestController  
which is annoying but can be done.

On 5 Jan 2010, at 17:36, Phillip Koebbe wrote:

> I'm trying to implement a base controller that other controllers  
> descend from, and am having a bit of difficulty in testing the sole  
> "feature" of the base controller.
>
> http://gist.github.com/269544
>
> In the "not redirecting when user is an admin" context, I keep  
> getting an error that "no action responded to <whatever I try>".  
> Obviously, there are no actions in this controller, nor should there  
> be. I want to hit an action in a descendant controller and make sure  
> that it goes through.
>
> How do I do that?
>
> Thanks,
> Phillip
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

cheers,
Matt

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 15:37:10 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:37:10 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <A4CA8310-AF8C-4856-9409-88EBB1B249CE@mattwynne.net>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
	<A4CA8310-AF8C-4856-9409-88EBB1B249CE@mattwynne.net>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001051237u2237908ch41075eaca582ee48@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net> wrote:

> Subclass it in your spec with
>
> class TestController < Admin::BaseController
>   def index
>   end
> end
>
> ...then use the TestController in your tests for Admin::BaseController.
>
> That might mean you'll need to add special routing for TestController which
> is annoying but can be done.


>From The RSpec Book:

http://media.pragprog.com/titles/achbd/code/rails_controllers/messages/15/spec/controllers/application_controller5_spec.rb


>
> On 5 Jan 2010, at 17:36, Phillip Koebbe wrote:
>
>  I'm trying to implement a base controller that other controllers descend
>> from, and am having a bit of difficulty in testing the sole "feature" of the
>> base controller.
>>
>> http://gist.github.com/269544
>>
>> In the "not redirecting when user is an admin" context, I keep getting an
>> error that "no action responded to <whatever I try>". Obviously, there are
>> no actions in this controller, nor should there be. I want to hit an action
>> in a descendant controller and make sure that it goes through.
>>
>> How do I do that?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Phillip
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
> cheers,
> Matt
>
> http://mattwynne.net
> +447974 430184
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100105/56ac72c3/attachment.html>

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 15:52:25 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:52:25 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
	<2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>
Message-ID: <4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>



Pat Maddox wrote:
> The spec has Admin::BaseController as the described type.  So of course it's going to test against that.  If you want to test a different class, you need to describe that instead!

Hi Pat,

Right. But, I'm not really wanting to test a different class. My 
intention is to put the require_admin in the base_controller and have 
all the admin controllers descend from it, so I don't have to duplicate 
the before_filter. I was trying to be simple and make a request to a 
controller that descends from base_controller, thinking that if it got 
through and didn't redirect to the error page, it worked. How would you 
suggest I test that

Peace,
Phillip

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 15:53:50 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:53:50 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <A4CA8310-AF8C-4856-9409-88EBB1B249CE@mattwynne.net>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
	<A4CA8310-AF8C-4856-9409-88EBB1B249CE@mattwynne.net>
Message-ID: <4B43A6DE.4080302@gmail.com>

> Subclass it in your spec with
>
> class TestController < Admin::BaseController
>    def index
>    end
> end
>
> ...then use the TestController in your tests for Admin::BaseController.
>
> That might mean you'll need to add special routing for TestController 
> which is annoying but can be done.

Thanks, Matt. Between your post and David's, I'll see if I can put it 
all together.

Peace,
Phillip

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 16:37:06 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:37:06 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <4B43A6DE.4080302@gmail.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
	<A4CA8310-AF8C-4856-9409-88EBB1B249CE@mattwynne.net>
	<4B43A6DE.4080302@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001051337s473e05fei33274e3e53a2caf6@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Phillip Koebbe <phillipkoebbe at gmail.com>wrote:

> Subclass it in your spec with
>>
>> class TestController < Admin::BaseController
>>   def index
>>   end
>> end
>>
>> ...then use the TestController in your tests for Admin::BaseController.
>>
>> That might mean you'll need to add special routing for TestController
>> which is annoying but can be done.
>>
>
> Thanks, Matt. Between your post and David's, I'll see if I can put it all
> together.
>

Phillip - one thing to keep in mind is that subclasses can always override
super class behaviour. So on the one hand, we want to minimize duplication
and only spec one thing once. On the other hand, if we're spec'ing that
every controller should behave some way, we should spec every controller.
I'm not advocating one approach or the other, just pointing out a couple of
costs/benefits.


>
> Peace,
>
> Phillip
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100105/64feff5b/attachment.html>

From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 18:10:23 2010
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:10:23 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] 'Expected NoMethodError, got NameError'
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001050816v2cff1df4ie05abed4bb0ba8e8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20091230210446.GS12080@malachai>
	<88fd8ddc1001041257p5acf8d11v4e0a7fbd1d8b7c63@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001041300q2ebf4055q2c2c7c6fb48b54f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<88fd8ddc1001050535k1c24c30bl7022b43762a3a924@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001050816v2cff1df4ie05abed4bb0ba8e8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deb2337a1001051510s31b8fcb9jc53d08855ed36e73@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Andrew Premdas <apremdas at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anyhow thanks once again for all your wonderful work on rspec and on this
>> mailing list it really is very much appreciated.
>
> Thank you for saying so. Appreciation is always appreciated :)

I can appreciate that!

-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From win at wincent.com  Tue Jan  5 19:44:20 2010
From: win at wincent.com (Wincent Colaiuta)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 01:44:20 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
	<2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>
	<4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com>

El 05/01/2010, a las 21:52, Phillip Koebbe escribi?:

> Pat Maddox wrote:
>> The spec has Admin::BaseController as the described type.  So of  
>> course it's going to test against that.  If you want to test a  
>> different class, you need to describe that instead!
>
> Hi Pat,
>
> Right. But, I'm not really wanting to test a different class. My  
> intention is to put the require_admin in the base_controller and  
> have all the admin controllers descend from it, so I don't have to  
> duplicate the before_filter. I was trying to be simple and make a  
> request to a controller that descends from base_controller, thinking  
> that if it got through and didn't redirect to the error page, it  
> worked. How would you suggest I test that

I test inherited stuff with shared behaviors. It might be something  
you could use here.

Basically, I have a bunch of behavior in my ApplicationController, for  
example, and in my spec/controllers/application_controller_spec.rb  
file I have a bunch of blocks like this:

   describe ApplicationController, 'protected methods', :shared =>  
true do
     ...
   end

   describe ApplicationController, 'parameter filtering', :shared =>  
true do
     ...
   end

And I then group them all together in one more shared behavior:

   describe ApplicationController, :shared => true do
     it_should_behave_like 'ApplicationController protected methods'
     it_should_behave_like 'ApplicationController parameter filtering'
     ...
   end

And finally in all subclasses which inherit I can now just do:

   describe ArticlesController do
     it_should_behave_like 'ApplicationController'
     ...
   end

So the behavior inherited from the superclass is specified, but it is  
also tested independently by the inheriting subclasses.

I imagine the same idea might be adaptable in some way for your use  
case.

Cheers,
Wincent

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jan  5 20:01:39 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 19:01:39 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
	<2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>
	<4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>
	<93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001051701q324ac8do92a74159f6a1b6f7@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Wincent Colaiuta <win at wincent.com> wrote:

> El 05/01/2010, a las 21:52, Phillip Koebbe escribi?:
>
>
>  Pat Maddox wrote:
>>
>>> The spec has Admin::BaseController as the described type.  So of course
>>> it's going to test against that.  If you want to test a different class, you
>>> need to describe that instead!
>>>
>>
>> Hi Pat,
>>
>> Right. But, I'm not really wanting to test a different class. My intention
>> is to put the require_admin in the base_controller and have all the admin
>> controllers descend from it, so I don't have to duplicate the before_filter.
>> I was trying to be simple and make a request to a controller that descends
>> from base_controller, thinking that if it got through and didn't redirect to
>> the error page, it worked. How would you suggest I test that
>>
>
> I test inherited stuff with shared behaviors. It might be something you
> could use here.
>
> Basically, I have a bunch of behavior in my ApplicationController, for
> example, and in my spec/controllers/application_controller_spec.rb file I
> have a bunch of blocks like this:
>
>  describe ApplicationController, 'protected methods', :shared => true do
>    ...
>  end
>
>  describe ApplicationController, 'parameter filtering', :shared => true do
>    ...
>  end
>
> And I then group them all together in one more shared behavior:
>
>  describe ApplicationController, :shared => true do
>    it_should_behave_like 'ApplicationController protected methods'
>    it_should_behave_like 'ApplicationController parameter filtering'
>    ...
>  end
>
> And finally in all subclasses which inherit I can now just do:
>
>  describe ArticlesController do
>    it_should_behave_like 'ApplicationController'
>    ...
>  end
>
> So the behavior inherited from the superclass is specified, but it is also
> tested independently by the inheriting subclasses.
>

Yay!


>
> I imagine the same idea might be adaptable in some way for your use case.
>
> Cheers,
> Wincent
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100105/b0910661/attachment-0001.html>

From edvard.majakari at gmail.com  Wed Jan  6 08:22:58 2010
From: edvard.majakari at gmail.com (Edvard Majakari)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:22:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] Adding stubs for an included argument
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001050854v6e3f8b31j6274ccc358f40bc3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ecf24b5b-8d2d-49ff-9296-fc87558639bc@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe1001050854v6e3f8b31j6274ccc358f40bc3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <69e2ef21-d6e3-4d19-8db6-de54c4161e58@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>

Woohoo! I was aware of the block construct, but didn't know it worked
with stub! as well (with should_receive, I had to use at_least... and
it broke the system, making it unusable).

Thanks!

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Wed Jan  6 10:17:33 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:17:33 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>	<2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>	<4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>
	<93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com>
Message-ID: <4B44A98D.3090609@gmail.com>



Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
>
> I test inherited stuff with shared behaviors. It might be something 
> you could use here.
>
> Basically, I have a bunch of behavior in my ApplicationController, for 
> example, and in my spec/controllers/application_controller_spec.rb 
> file I have a bunch of blocks like this:
>
>   describe ApplicationController, 'protected methods', :shared => true do
>     ...
>   end
>
>   describe ApplicationController, 'parameter filtering', :shared => 
> true do
>     ...
>   end
>
> And I then group them all together in one more shared behavior:
>
>   describe ApplicationController, :shared => true do
>     it_should_behave_like 'ApplicationController protected methods'
>     it_should_behave_like 'ApplicationController parameter filtering'
>     ...
>   end
>
> And finally in all subclasses which inherit I can now just do:
>
>   describe ArticlesController do
>     it_should_behave_like 'ApplicationController'
>     ...
>   end
>
> So the behavior inherited from the superclass is specified, but it is 
> also tested independently by the inheriting subclasses.
>
> I imagine the same idea might be adaptable in some way for your use case.
>
> Cheers,
> Wincent
Hi Wincent,

Thanks for the input. I like the idea of the shared behavior so it gets 
tested at all points of execution. [And I really enjoyed David's "Yay!", 
too. :) ] I am going to keep that in mind as I go forward. In this 
particular case, my dilemma was how to test the behavior in the 
base_controller to begin with. The problem stemmed from the fact that 
there were no actions in the controller to call so I couldn't do a get 
on it. With Matt and David's help, I have achieved what I was originally 
after.  The gist is updated if you are interested:

http://gist.github.com/269544

I'm not sure how to share the behavior now, though. As I look at the 
context that implements the testing of the before_filter, sharing it 
doesn't seem to make sense since it creates a bogus derived class to do 
the testing. If I share the behavior to real derived controllers, it 
doesn't seem to me that they will, in fact, be tested.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

Peace,
Phillip

From win at wincent.com  Wed Jan  6 16:45:37 2010
From: win at wincent.com (Wincent Colaiuta)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 22:45:37 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <4B44A98D.3090609@gmail.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>	<2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>	<4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>
	<93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com>
	<4B44A98D.3090609@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <386396F2-A3D0-46A0-8273-57608D912A55@wincent.com>

El 06/01/2010, a las 16:17, Phillip Koebbe escribi?:

> Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
>>
>> I test inherited stuff with shared behaviors. It might be something  
>> you could use here.
>>
>> Basically, I have a bunch of behavior in my ApplicationController,  
>> for example, and in my spec/controllers/ 
>> application_controller_spec.rb file I have a bunch of blocks like  
>> this:
>>
>>  describe ApplicationController, 'protected methods', :shared =>  
>> true do
>>    ...
>>  end
>>
>>  describe ApplicationController, 'parameter filtering', :shared =>  
>> true do
>>    ...
>>  end
>>
>> And I then group them all together in one more shared behavior:
>>
>>  describe ApplicationController, :shared => true do
>>    it_should_behave_like 'ApplicationController protected methods'
>>    it_should_behave_like 'ApplicationController parameter filtering'
>>    ...
>>  end
>>
>> And finally in all subclasses which inherit I can now just do:
>>
>>  describe ArticlesController do
>>    it_should_behave_like 'ApplicationController'
>>    ...
>>  end
>>
>> So the behavior inherited from the superclass is specified, but it  
>> is also tested independently by the inheriting subclasses.
>>
>> I imagine the same idea might be adaptable in some way for your use  
>> case.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Wincent
> Hi Wincent,
>
> Thanks for the input. I like the idea of the shared behavior so it  
> gets tested at all points of execution. [And I really enjoyed  
> David's "Yay!", too. :) ] I am going to keep that in mind as I go  
> forward. In this particular case, my dilemma was how to test the  
> behavior in the base_controller to begin with. The problem stemmed  
> from the fact that there were no actions in the controller to call  
> so I couldn't do a get on it. With Matt and David's help, I have  
> achieved what I was originally after.  The gist is updated if you  
> are interested:
>
> http://gist.github.com/269544
>
> I'm not sure how to share the behavior now, though. As I look at the  
> context that implements the testing of the before_filter, sharing it  
> doesn't seem to make sense since it creates a bogus derived class to  
> do the testing. If I share the behavior to real derived controllers,  
> it doesn't seem to me that they will, in fact, be tested.
>
> Do you have any thoughts on that?

Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat, but the thing I like  
about my proposed solution is that:

- the specification of the behavior appears in the "describe" block  
that corresponds to the controller where the behavior is implemented

- but given that the implementing controller is an abstract one, you  
actually test the behavior where it is actually exercised (ie. in the  
subclasses)

- you don't need to make a fictional controller which isn't actually  
part of your application purely for testing purposes

Looking at the gist you pasted it looks like it could be very  
straightforward to test, especially if you're using a RESTful access  
pattern.

Your admin controllers all inherit from your abstract base class, and  
if they're RESTful you know before you even start which actions  
they'll respond to (the usual index, new, create etc). Perhaps they  
only respond to a subset; but even if they only respond to one ("show"  
or "index", say) you have enough of a common basis to test that the  
require_admin before filter is actually hit and does what you think it  
should (ie. you only need to hit "show" or "index", there is no need  
to test all actions).

Cheers,
Wincent




From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jan  6 18:18:16 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:18:16 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Fixtures problem with Rails plugin
In-Reply-To: <6a4e6e88-a045-407f-9ffc-720a3fff8261@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
References: <6a4e6e88-a045-407f-9ffc-720a3fff8261@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001061518n64e8cc32se7be194375f72153@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM, John j. Cuckler <carsupb at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi, I just wrote some specs for a rails plugin, I'm using some
> fixtures and rake:spec:plugins works fine as long as there is only
> this plugin loaded in the application, but if I add another one it
> doesn't load fixtures. Apart from that, everything is working.
>
> I added this in my plugin spec file to make it look for fixtures in
> the right place:
>
> Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
>  config.fixture_path = File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/fixtures'
> end
>

Where is this declared, relative to RAILS_ROOT?


> Everything is up to date, both rails and rspec gems.
> Any idea?
>

Do the other plugins use rspec too? And fixtures?


> Thanks
>
> JJ
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100106/5ab74fcb/attachment.html>

From matt at mattwynne.net  Wed Jan  6 19:53:14 2010
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 00:53:14 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] describe "RSpec's documentation" do
In-Reply-To: <C6507183-6C14-41D1-8BB0-E0BF67FB63BF@reprocessed.org>
References: <A3756A49-A10C-4138-8665-AAB730556A2B@gmail.com>
	<98A6AC6B-BECC-4564-AF04-C49429AC7C75@mattwynne.net>
	<C6507183-6C14-41D1-8BB0-E0BF67FB63BF@reprocessed.org>
Message-ID: <FCE3C7EA-8169-4AEF-A0AD-E4833BE587E5@mattwynne.net>


On 5 Jan 2010, at 12:17, Matt Patterson wrote:

> On 9 Nov 2009, at 22:03, Matt Wynne wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6 Nov 2009, at 12:49, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>> In the long run, what I'd like is the following:
>>>
>>> * Cucumber features that ship with RSpec become the authoritative  
>>> end-user documentation. This is something that anybody can  
>>> contribute to with patches, as it's all in files that ship with  
>>> RSpec. I'd also like to use such an effort to push the envelope on  
>>> Cucumber features as executable documentation. I think that with a  
>>> little bit of work we could use the features to generate a website  
>>> with meaningful organization/navigation. Is anybody already doing  
>>> that?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I had a little epiphany working on the wire protocol feature for  
>> cucumber[3]. We were trying to design the protocol via email and  
>> lighthouse ticket discussion, started using a wiki to document the  
>> desired protocol when I realised - why don't we just use the  
>> features!? I would like to see more people pushing Cucumber in this  
>> direction, and I think it would be interesting to consider adding  
>> mark-up to comments to allow us to build RDoc-style websites from a  
>> features folder.
>
> I've been looking at the documentation again recently, and I'd be  
> happy to start work on this, particularly if Matt W is wanting to  
> look at the cucumber end since he's just up the road from me.
>
> I'm very keen on the executable documentation aspects of this, and I  
> did a whole load of work back in 2008 on this kind of stuff using  
> RSpec, so I've got a bit of history here :-)

Great. I think it's time we really started dogfooding cucumber in  
terms of producing executable documentation. The features for Cucumber  
itself could do with some housekeeping, but right now the focus there  
is on the code, so RSpec seems like a nice place to work on this from.

I would like to see us try to build a flat HTML website (or PDF  
reference book) from rspec's features directory which could be used as  
reference by a new or curious user. As David says, I think we could  
drive out a bunch of really nice features from Cucumber to help make  
it much easier to build and maintain large suites of features.

So what's the first step? A pint or two at the Reliance perhaps Mr  
Patterson?

cheers,
Matt

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From ben.fyvie at champsoftware.com  Wed Jan  6 20:15:49 2010
From: ben.fyvie at champsoftware.com (Ben Fyvie)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:15:49 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Problem with should_not when passing a multiple args
	to a matcher
Message-ID: <4862558A4CDA426D80C03F951C599CA8@champ.net>

We seem to be hitting some undesirable behavior with should_not in
combination with matchers that accept collections. Let me use the "include"
matcher for example (a co-worker reported similar problems using "be_any" so
I don't believe this is limited to "include"). The RDoc states:

 

Passes if actual includes expected. This works for collections and Strings.
You can also pass in multiple args and it will only pass if all args are
found in collection.

Examples

[1,2,3].should include(3)

[1,2,3].should include(2,3) #would pass

[1,2,3].should include(2,3,4) #would fail

[1,2,3].should_not include(4)

"spread".should include("read")

"spread".should_not include("red")

 

The RDoc doesn't give any examples of using a "should_not" along with
multiple args being passed to "include", but since I couldn't find any
documentation on why it would not work I assume that it should work. Here is
a list of tests I came up with to find out what works and what doesn't.
Note: All of these tests SHOULD fail; the problem is with the tests that do
NOT fail.

    it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should\" with
multiple args" do

      [1,2,3].should include(2,3,4)

    end

 

    it "does NOT properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\"
with multiple args when at least one value in the expected args is in the
actual collection" do

      [1,2,3].should_not include(3,4,5)

    end

 

    it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\" with
multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
collection" do

      [1,2,3].should_not include(1,2,3)

    end

 

    it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\" with
multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
collection and when the expected args don't cover all of the values in the
actual collection" do

      [1,2,3].should_not include(1,2)

    end

 

    it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\" with a
single arg" do

      [1,2,3].should_not include(3)

    end

 

    it "does properly fail on a string when using \"should_not\" with
multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
string" do

      "abc".should_not include("a", "b", "c")

    end

 

    it "does NOT properly fail when using \"should_not\" with multiple args
when at least one of the values in the expected args is in the actual
string" do

      "abc".should_not include("a", "b", "e")

    end

 

    it "does properly fail on a string when using \"should_not\" with
multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
collection and when the expected args don't cover all of the values in the
actual string" do

      "abc".should_not include("a","b")

    end

 

    it "does properly fail on a string when using \"should_not\" with a
single arg" do

      "abc".should_not include("a")

    end

 

We are using the following rspec gems:

Rspec-1.2.9

Rspec-rails-1.2.7.1

 

So I think one of two things needs to happen here dependent on whether this
is desired behavior or not.

1. If this is desired behavior then an exception really should be raised if
you try to use "should_not" in combination with passing a collection to a
matcher. At the very least there needs to be some documentation to inform
RSpec users that tests will not always fail as they might expect when using
"should_not" in combination with a matcher that accepts multiple args. 

2. If this is not desired behavior then of course we need a fix.

 

I apologize if this has been brought up previously; I did as much searching
on this issue as possible. 

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Ben Fyvie



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100106/befa0585/attachment-0001.html>

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Wed Jan  6 21:53:15 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:53:15 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <386396F2-A3D0-46A0-8273-57608D912A55@wincent.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>	<2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>	<4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>	<93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com>	<4B44A98D.3090609@gmail.com>
	<386396F2-A3D0-46A0-8273-57608D912A55@wincent.com>
Message-ID: <4B454C9B.2040604@gmail.com>



Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
>
> Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat, but the thing I like 
> about my proposed solution is that:
>
> - the specification of the behavior appears in the "describe" block 
> that corresponds to the controller where the behavior is implemented
>
> - but given that the implementing controller is an abstract one, you 
> actually test the behavior where it is actually exercised (ie. in the 
> subclasses)
>
> - you don't need to make a fictional controller which isn't actually 
> part of your application purely for testing purposes
>
> Looking at the gist you pasted it looks like it could be very 
> straightforward to test, especially if you're using a RESTful access 
> pattern.
>
> Your admin controllers all inherit from your abstract base class, and 
> if they're RESTful you know before you even start which actions 
> they'll respond to (the usual index, new, create etc). Perhaps they 
> only respond to a subset; but even if they only respond to one ("show" 
> or "index", say) you have enough of a common basis to test that the 
> require_admin before filter is actually hit and does what you think it 
> should (ie. you only need to hit "show" or "index", there is no need 
> to test all actions).
>
> Cheers,
> Wincent
>

Are you basically saying that you wouldn't worry about testing the 
before_filter in the base_controller at all? Maybe part of the reason I 
am not "getting this" is my lack of familiarity with shared behaviors. 
If I share the behavior in the base_controller_spec, will it get tested 
when I run that spec? If it won't, then my concern is moot. If it will, 
then I'm just as confused as I was before.

Peace,
Phillip

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jan  7 02:19:18 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 01:19:18 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Problem with should_not when passing a multiple
	args to a matcher
In-Reply-To: <4862558A4CDA426D80C03F951C599CA8@champ.net>
References: <4862558A4CDA426D80C03F951C599CA8@champ.net>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001062319p1ff0afc7ta72ea71f222623b3@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Ben Fyvie <ben.fyvie at champsoftware.com>wrote:

>  We seem to be hitting some undesirable behavior with should_not in
> combination with matchers that accept collections. Let me use the ?include?
> matcher for example (a co-worker reported similar problems using ?be_any? so
> I don?t believe this is limited to ?include?). The RDoc states:
>
> Passes if actual includes expected. This works for collections and Strings.
> You can also pass in multiple args and it will only pass if all args are
> found in collection.
>
> Examples
>
> [1,2,3].should include(3)
>
> [1,2,3].should include(2,3) #would pass
>
> [1,2,3].should include(2,3,4) #would fail
>
> [1,2,3].should_not include(4)
>
> "spread".should include("read")
>
> "spread".should_not include("red")
>
>
>
> The RDoc doesn?t give any examples of using a ?should_not? along with
> multiple args being passed to ?include?, but since I couldn?t find any
> documentation on why it would not work I assume that it should work. Here is
> a list of tests I came up with to find out what works and what doesn?t.
> Note: All of these tests SHOULD fail; the problem is with the tests that do
> NOT fail.
>
>     it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should\" with
> multiple args" do
>
>       [1,2,3].should include(2,3,4)
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does NOT properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\"
> with multiple args when at least one value in the expected args is in the
> actual collection" do
>
>       [1,2,3].should_not include(3,4,5)
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\" with
> multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
> collection" do
>
>       [1,2,3].should_not include(1,2,3)
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\" with
> multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
> collection and when the expected args don't cover all of the values in the
> actual collection" do
>
>       [1,2,3].should_not include(1,2)
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\" with a
> single arg" do
>
>       [1,2,3].should_not include(3)
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does properly fail on a string when using \"should_not\" with
> multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
> string" do
>
>       "abc".should_not include("a", "b", "c")
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does NOT properly fail when using \"should_not\" with multiple args
> when at least one of the values in the expected args is in the actual
> string" do
>
>       "abc".should_not include("a", "b", "e")
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does properly fail on a string when using \"should_not\" with
> multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
> collection and when the expected args don't cover all of the values in the
> actual string" do
>
>       "abc".should_not include("a","b")
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does properly fail on a string when using \"should_not\" with a
> single arg" do
>
>       "abc".should_not include("a")
>
>     end
>
>
>
> We are using the following rspec gems:
>
> Rspec-1.2.9
>
> Rspec-rails-1.2.7.1
>
>
>
> So I think one of two things needs to happen here dependent on whether this
> is desired behavior or not.
>
> 1. If this is desired behavior then an exception really should be raised if
> you try to use ?should_not? in combination with passing a collection to a
> matcher. At the very least there needs to be some documentation to inform
> RSpec users that tests will not always fail as they might expect when using
> ?should_not? in combination with a matcher that accepts multiple args.
>
> 2. If this is not desired behavior then of course we need a fix.
>
> I apologize if this has been brought up previously; I did as much searching
> on this issue as possible.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Ben Fyvie
>

Hi Ben,

First, thank you for such a detailed, yet grok'able report.

Second - I don't agree with your assessment that this is working incorrectly
:)

Unless I'm misreading your assessment, I'm reading that you expect "should
include(*args)" to mean "should include ALL of these args" whereas
"should_not include(*args)" means "should not include ANY of these args."

Make sense?

IMO, I think this is a documentation problem and that it is neither in need
of an exception, nor in need of a fix.

That said, perhaps we need a couple of matchers: include_all and
include_any, with include being an alias for include_all. That would
certainly clear up the confusion. WDYT?

Cheers,
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100107/14de6143/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jan  7 02:27:11 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 01:27:11 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <4B454C9B.2040604@gmail.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
	<2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>
	<4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>
	<93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com>
	<4B44A98D.3090609@gmail.com>
	<386396F2-A3D0-46A0-8273-57608D912A55@wincent.com>
	<4B454C9B.2040604@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001062327h2f6d6e5cs90d0d75c4f1b7370@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Phillip Koebbe <phillipkoebbe at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat, but the thing I like about
>> my proposed solution is that:
>>
>> - the specification of the behavior appears in the "describe" block that
>> corresponds to the controller where the behavior is implemented
>>
>> - but given that the implementing controller is an abstract one, you
>> actually test the behavior where it is actually exercised (ie. in the
>> subclasses)
>>
>> - you don't need to make a fictional controller which isn't actually part
>> of your application purely for testing purposes
>>
>> Looking at the gist you pasted it looks like it could be very
>> straightforward to test, especially if you're using a RESTful access
>> pattern.
>>
>> Your admin controllers all inherit from your abstract base class, and if
>> they're RESTful you know before you even start which actions they'll respond
>> to (the usual index, new, create etc). Perhaps they only respond to a
>> subset; but even if they only respond to one ("show" or "index", say) you
>> have enough of a common basis to test that the require_admin before filter
>> is actually hit and does what you think it should (ie. you only need to hit
>> "show" or "index", there is no need to test all actions).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Wincent
>>
>>
> Are you basically saying that you wouldn't worry about testing the
> before_filter in the base_controller at all? Maybe part of the reason I am
> not "getting this" is my lack of familiarity with shared behaviors. If I
> share the behavior in the base_controller_spec, will it get tested when I
> run that spec? If it won't, then my concern is moot. If it will, then I'm
> just as confused as I was before.
>

A shared example group is a lot like a module. It is only run when it is
invoked in a non-shared example group:

**********************************
SPECS:

shared_examples_for "any controller" do
  it "does something shared" { ... }
end

describe SpecificController do
  it_should_behave_like "any controller"
  it "does something specific" { ... }
end
**********************************
OUTPUT:

SpecificController
  does something shared
  does something specific
**********************************
Does that clear anything up?

Cheers,
David


> Peace,
> Phillip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100107/ee986e0a/attachment-0001.html>

From win at wincent.com  Thu Jan  7 02:22:50 2010
From: win at wincent.com (Wincent Colaiuta)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:22:50 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <4B454C9B.2040604@gmail.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>	<2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>	<4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>	<93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com>	<4B44A98D.3090609@gmail.com>
	<386396F2-A3D0-46A0-8273-57608D912A55@wincent.com>
	<4B454C9B.2040604@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EDBFDCC1-716F-4BDD-9B2F-52BFA7C38295@wincent.com>

El 07/01/2010, a las 03:53, Phillip Koebbe escribi?:

> Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
>>
>> Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat, but the thing I  
>> like about my proposed solution is that:
>>
>> - the specification of the behavior appears in the "describe" block  
>> that corresponds to the controller where the behavior is implemented
>>
>> - but given that the implementing controller is an abstract one,  
>> you actually test the behavior where it is actually exercised (ie.  
>> in the subclasses)
>>
>> - you don't need to make a fictional controller which isn't  
>> actually part of your application purely for testing purposes
>>
>> Looking at the gist you pasted it looks like it could be very  
>> straightforward to test, especially if you're using a RESTful  
>> access pattern.
>>
>> Your admin controllers all inherit from your abstract base class,  
>> and if they're RESTful you know before you even start which actions  
>> they'll respond to (the usual index, new, create etc). Perhaps they  
>> only respond to a subset; but even if they only respond to one  
>> ("show" or "index", say) you have enough of a common basis to test  
>> that the require_admin before filter is actually hit and does what  
>> you think it should (ie. you only need to hit "show" or "index",  
>> there is no need to test all actions).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Wincent
>>
>
> Are you basically saying that you wouldn't worry about testing the  
> before_filter in the base_controller at all?

Exactly. The base_controller is never directly instantiated and its  
"behaviour" is only ever manifested in the context of its subclasses,  
so you can test the behavior by testing that it exists in the  
subclasses.

As you have seen, you can't really test the abstract base_controller  
directly itself because it has no actions.

> Maybe part of the reason I am not "getting this" is my lack of  
> familiarity with shared behaviors. If I share the behavior in the  
> base_controller_spec, will it get tested when I run that spec? If it  
> won't, then my concern is moot. If it will, then I'm just as  
> confused as I was before.

Shared behaviors are just a convenient way to define in behaviors once  
in a single place, which will be exercised in multiple places, so that  
you can keep things DRY.

If you run the file with the "describe foo :shared => true" block in  
it, nothing will actually happen.

Your assertions get exercised only when you run other "describe"  
blocks containing "it_should_behave_like ..."

They can be useful not just in cases like this where you have an  
abstract superclass. You can use them wherever you have a bunch of  
common behavior across different classes.

Cheers,
Wincent


From matt at mattwynne.net  Thu Jan  7 05:09:35 2010
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:09:35 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <EDBFDCC1-716F-4BDD-9B2F-52BFA7C38295@wincent.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>	<2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>	<4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>	<93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com>	<4B44A98D.3090609@gmail.com>
	<386396F2-A3D0-46A0-8273-57608D912A55@wincent.com>
	<4B454C9B.2040604@gmail.com>
	<EDBFDCC1-716F-4BDD-9B2F-52BFA7C38295@wincent.com>
Message-ID: <7365D4F8-7A51-49A2-8AE0-5A59A8C00CFD@mattwynne.net>


On 7 Jan 2010, at 07:22, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:

> El 07/01/2010, a las 03:53, Phillip Koebbe escribi?:
>
>> Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat, but the thing I  
>>> like about my proposed solution is that:
>>>
>>> - the specification of the behavior appears in the "describe"  
>>> block that corresponds to the controller where the behavior is  
>>> implemented
>>>
>>> - but given that the implementing controller is an abstract one,  
>>> you actually test the behavior where it is actually exercised (ie.  
>>> in the subclasses)
>>>
>>> - you don't need to make a fictional controller which isn't  
>>> actually part of your application purely for testing purposes
>>>
>>> Looking at the gist you pasted it looks like it could be very  
>>> straightforward to test, especially if you're using a RESTful  
>>> access pattern.
>>>
>>> Your admin controllers all inherit from your abstract base class,  
>>> and if they're RESTful you know before you even start which  
>>> actions they'll respond to (the usual index, new, create etc).  
>>> Perhaps they only respond to a subset; but even if they only  
>>> respond to one ("show" or "index", say) you have enough of a  
>>> common basis to test that the require_admin before filter is  
>>> actually hit and does what you think it should (ie. you only need  
>>> to hit "show" or "index", there is no need to test all actions).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Wincent
>>>
>>
>> Are you basically saying that you wouldn't worry about testing the  
>> before_filter in the base_controller at all?
>
> Exactly. The base_controller is never directly instantiated and its  
> "behaviour" is only ever manifested in the context of its  
> subclasses, so you can test the behavior by testing that it exists  
> in the subclasses.
>
> As you have seen, you can't really test the abstract base_controller  
> directly itself because it has no actions.
>
>> Maybe part of the reason I am not "getting this" is my lack of  
>> familiarity with shared behaviors. If I share the behavior in the  
>> base_controller_spec, will it get tested when I run that spec? If  
>> it won't, then my concern is moot. If it will, then I'm just as  
>> confused as I was before.
>
> Shared behaviors are just a convenient way to define in behaviors  
> once in a single place, which will be exercised in multiple places,  
> so that you can keep things DRY.
>
> If you run the file with the "describe foo :shared => true" block in  
> it, nothing will actually happen.
>
> Your assertions get exercised only when you run other "describe"  
> blocks containing "it_should_behave_like ..."
>
> They can be useful not just in cases like this where you have an  
> abstract superclass. You can use them wherever you have a bunch of  
> common behavior across different classes.

OK I'm going to bite on this one.

Shared behaviours are indeed useful and a really nice idea. When I  
first started working with RSpec I used them exactly like this - I  
wrote no specs for abstract classes or modules, and wrote shared  
behaviour specs which I mixed in to all the classes that used the  
abstract class or module. I told myself: "this is much better - I'm  
not being distracted by the implementation details (inheritance,  
mixins) I'm just specifying the behaviour of the class".

I think that method probably works great for small models, but I have  
found that over time on the Songkick codebase, I've come to rather  
dislike the shared behaviours. This is mainly, I think, because when I  
get a failure, the error message doesn't point me very clearly at  
which class was actually being tested when the failure occurred. I  
also think I resent them because I know that for a popular module, I  
might be running the exact same specs over the exact same code several  
times, for no purpose.

What I now prefer to do is keep the interface between a module (or  
even an abstract class) and the class it's mixed into quite clean, and  
specify that re-usable unit in isolation, with an example using a  
temporary class created in the test. I might have one or two specs in  
the class which mixes in the module to prove that the module is mixed  
in and working, but most of the specs for the behaviour of that module  
itself will live alongside the module and run only once.

As David said earlier there are strengths and weaknesses to both  
approaches so you have to find your own path here. I just wanted to  
share my experience.

cheers,
Matt

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From apremdas at gmail.com  Thu Jan  7 05:20:06 2010
From: apremdas at gmail.com (Andrew Premdas)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:20:06 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <4B454C9B.2040604@gmail.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
	<2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>
	<4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>
	<93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com>
	<4B44A98D.3090609@gmail.com>
	<386396F2-A3D0-46A0-8273-57608D912A55@wincent.com>
	<4B454C9B.2040604@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <88fd8ddc1001070220t496d3b45v2064795924bb5a8f@mail.gmail.com>

2010/1/7 Phillip Koebbe <phillipkoebbe at gmail.com>

>
>
> Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat, but the thing I like about
>> my proposed solution is that:
>>
>> - the specification of the behavior appears in the "describe" block that
>> corresponds to the controller where the behavior is implemented
>>
>> - but given that the implementing controller is an abstract one, you
>> actually test the behavior where it is actually exercised (ie. in the
>> subclasses)
>>
>> - you don't need to make a fictional controller which isn't actually part
>> of your application purely for testing purposes
>>
>> Looking at the gist you pasted it looks like it could be very
>> straightforward to test, especially if you're using a RESTful access
>> pattern.
>>
>> Your admin controllers all inherit from your abstract base class, and if
>> they're RESTful you know before you even start which actions they'll respond
>> to (the usual index, new, create etc). Perhaps they only respond to a
>> subset; but even if they only respond to one ("show" or "index", say) you
>> have enough of a common basis to test that the require_admin before filter
>> is actually hit and does what you think it should (ie. you only need to hit
>> "show" or "index", there is no need to test all actions).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Wincent
>>
>>
> Are you basically saying that you wouldn't worry about testing the
> before_filter in the base_controller at all? Maybe part of the reason I am
> not "getting this" is my lack of familiarity with shared behaviors. If I
> share the behavior in the base_controller_spec, will it get tested when I
> run that spec? If it won't, then my concern is moot. If it will, then I'm
> just as confused as I was before.
>
>
You are using your base controller like an Abstract Class. In classic OO you
can't test such classes because you can't instantiate them. Things are a
little different here in Rails, but the parallel holds because you can't
route this class.  The classic way to test an abstract class is to
instantiate a concrete class from it and test that. This is what you've
done, created a concrete test class with a route. The only problem is you
think the class is bogus, but its not, its just what you want, you can see
that by how easy it is to spec. Once you've specified how this class works
you should be able to share that specification using the techniques Wincent
has shown. Saying that your other classes should behave like this special
test class is perfectly fine.

All best

Andrew






> Peace,
> Phillip
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100107/aac0f79d/attachment.html>

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Thu Jan  7 10:03:48 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 07:03:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <88fd8ddc1001070220t496d3b45v2064795924bb5a8f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
	<2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com> 
	<4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>
	<93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com> 
	<4B44A98D.3090609@gmail.com>
	<386396F2-A3D0-46A0-8273-57608D912A55@wincent.com> 
	<4B454C9B.2040604@gmail.com>
	<88fd8ddc1001070220t496d3b45v2064795924bb5a8f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbab4abc-9fd0-492c-a6c0-7142a1ae2a9e@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>

To all involved,

Great discussion! Thank you so much for taking the time out of your
busy lives to contribute. Please believe me when I say that I
appreciate it *very* much!

Here is the latest version of my code:

http://gist.github.com/269544

I like the idea of shared examples (trying to use the right
terminology!). It took me a bit to realize that the shared examples
have to be required somewhere. [I didn't see anything on rspec.info
about it, but did not consult the RSpec Book. Maybe it's there.] I
decided on the shared_controller_examples.rb file for now, but might
change it later. I have some further refactoring to do regarding the
chain of requiring files, but I'm pretty pleased at the moment.

I can go both ways on where to test implementation: at the source or
the execution. I worked on a Rails project last year that used Single
Table Inheritance, and there was quite a bit of functionality defined
in the base class with some additional functionality in the derived
classes. We opted to test the different parts where they were, not
where they would be exercised. It worked out well there. But in this
case, I am convinced that shared examples are the way to go. I do
*not* like creating classes in my specs just to run a test. That's
akin to having routes or actions in my application that would be used
only during testing. I can't bring myself to do it.

Peace,
Phillip

From matt at reprocessed.org  Thu Jan  7 09:15:12 2010
From: matt at reprocessed.org (Matt Patterson)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:15:12 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] describe "RSpec's documentation" do
In-Reply-To: <FCE3C7EA-8169-4AEF-A0AD-E4833BE587E5@mattwynne.net>
References: <A3756A49-A10C-4138-8665-AAB730556A2B@gmail.com>
	<98A6AC6B-BECC-4564-AF04-C49429AC7C75@mattwynne.net>
	<C6507183-6C14-41D1-8BB0-E0BF67FB63BF@reprocessed.org>
	<FCE3C7EA-8169-4AEF-A0AD-E4833BE587E5@mattwynne.net>
Message-ID: <8A6FAA3A-5DAE-4343-98DB-B9F82FDE50C1@reprocessed.org>

On 7 Jan 2010, at 00:53, Matt Wynne wrote:

> On 5 Jan 2010, at 12:17, Matt Patterson wrote:
> 
>> I've been looking at the documentation again recently, and I'd be happy to start work on this, particularly if Matt W is wanting to look at the cucumber end since he's just up the road from me.
>> 
>> I'm very keen on the executable documentation aspects of this, and I did a whole load of work back in 2008 on this kind of stuff using RSpec, so I've got a bit of history here :-)
> 
> Great. I think it's time we really started dogfooding cucumber in terms of producing executable documentation. The features for Cucumber itself could do with some housekeeping, but right now the focus there is on the code, so RSpec seems like a nice place to work on this from.
> 
> I would like to see us try to build a flat HTML website (or PDF reference book) from rspec's features directory which could be used as reference by a new or curious user. As David says, I think we could drive out a bunch of really nice features from Cucumber to help make it much easier to build and maintain large suites of features.
> 
> So what's the first step? A pint or two at the Reliance perhaps Mr Patterson?

That sounds about right :-)

Matt


-- 
  Matt Patterson | Design & Code
  <matt at reprocessed.org> | http://www.reprocessed.org/



From zach.dennis at gmail.com  Thu Jan  7 11:42:28 2010
From: zach.dennis at gmail.com (Zach Dennis)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:42:28 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] get to a different controller
In-Reply-To: <7365D4F8-7A51-49A2-8AE0-5A59A8C00CFD@mattwynne.net>
References: <4B4378B5.4000404@gmail.com>
	<2E305F4A-D13B-4E6F-8C7F-6A846BA4213A@patmaddox.com>
	<4B43A689.8090505@gmail.com>
	<93374C22-9461-4EF5-82A1-4D3EF01E4F3E@wincent.com>
	<4B44A98D.3090609@gmail.com>
	<386396F2-A3D0-46A0-8273-57608D912A55@wincent.com>
	<4B454C9B.2040604@gmail.com>
	<EDBFDCC1-716F-4BDD-9B2F-52BFA7C38295@wincent.com>
	<7365D4F8-7A51-49A2-8AE0-5A59A8C00CFD@mattwynne.net>
Message-ID: <85d99afe1001070842h41487ee9ode3c49a9cb0aefd3@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net> wrote:
>
> On 7 Jan 2010, at 07:22, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
>
>> El 07/01/2010, a las 03:53, Phillip Koebbe escribi?:
>>
>>> Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat, but the thing I like
>>>> about my proposed solution is that:
>>>>
>>>> - the specification of the behavior appears in the "describe" block that
>>>> corresponds to the controller where the behavior is implemented
>>>>
>>>> - but given that the implementing controller is an abstract one, you
>>>> actually test the behavior where it is actually exercised (ie. in the
>>>> subclasses)
>>>>
>>>> - you don't need to make a fictional controller which isn't actually
>>>> part of your application purely for testing purposes
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the gist you pasted it looks like it could be very
>>>> straightforward to test, especially if you're using a RESTful access
>>>> pattern.
>>>>
>>>> Your admin controllers all inherit from your abstract base class, and if
>>>> they're RESTful you know before you even start which actions they'll respond
>>>> to (the usual index, new, create etc). Perhaps they only respond to a
>>>> subset; but even if they only respond to one ("show" or "index", say) you
>>>> have enough of a common basis to test that the require_admin before filter
>>>> is actually hit and does what you think it should (ie. you only need to hit
>>>> "show" or "index", there is no need to test all actions).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Wincent
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you basically saying that you wouldn't worry about testing the
>>> before_filter in the base_controller at all?
>>
>> Exactly. The base_controller is never directly instantiated and its
>> "behaviour" is only ever manifested in the context of its subclasses, so you
>> can test the behavior by testing that it exists in the subclasses.
>>
>> As you have seen, you can't really test the abstract base_controller
>> directly itself because it has no actions.
>>
>>> Maybe part of the reason I am not "getting this" is my lack of
>>> familiarity with shared behaviors. If I share the behavior in the
>>> base_controller_spec, will it get tested when I run that spec? If it won't,
>>> then my concern is moot. If it will, then I'm just as confused as I was
>>> before.
>>
>> Shared behaviors are just a convenient way to define in behaviors once in
>> a single place, which will be exercised in multiple places, so that you can
>> keep things DRY.
>>
>> If you run the file with the "describe foo :shared => true" block in it,
>> nothing will actually happen.
>>
>> Your assertions get exercised only when you run other "describe" blocks
>> containing "it_should_behave_like ..."
>>
>> They can be useful not just in cases like this where you have an abstract
>> superclass. You can use them wherever you have a bunch of common behavior
>> across different classes.
>
> OK I'm going to bite on this one.
>
> Shared behaviours are indeed useful and a really nice idea. When I first
> started working with RSpec I used them exactly like this - I wrote no specs
> for abstract classes or modules, and wrote shared behaviour specs which I
> mixed in to all the classes that used the abstract class or module. I told
> myself: "this is much better - I'm not being distracted by the
> implementation details (inheritance, mixins) I'm just specifying the
> behaviour of the class".
>
>
> I think that method probably works great for small models, but I have found
> that over time on the Songkick codebase, I've come to rather dislike the
> shared behaviours. This is mainly, I think, because when I get a failure,
> the error message doesn't point me very clearly at which class was actually
> being tested when the failure occurred.

I don't really see a correlation between size and usefulness of shared
behaviours either through rspec's it_should_behave_like or a custom
macro. When you describe a class in a spec that class is prepended to
all of the example descriptions. For example:

  describe "a bar", :shared => true
    it "should serve up tequila" { ... }
  end

  describe Foo do
    it_should_behave_like "a bar"
  end

will produce:

  Foo should serve up tequila

If the top-level describe for an object isn't descriptive enough to
communicate what class/module/etc is being spec'ed then I see what
you're saying as a problem because the backtrace of a failed shared
example won't help either, since the backtrace stems from the file
that the shared example is stored in rather than the actual spec using
it (I wonder if there is a way around this).

> I also think I resent them because I
> know that for a popular module, I might be running the exact same specs over
> the exact same code several times, for no purpose.

This doesn't bother me a whole lot. While I don't want to needlessly
run examples multiple times to ensure something is working, I like err
on the side of my objects are behaving correctly rather than an object
includes a module. One of my reasons for this is because in the past
I've unfortunately had to find the hard way classes that were buggy
because of module inclusion order and one module overwrote another
module's method, yada yada yada. I have personally also gotten into a
groove for writing my own little shared macros and it makes it super
simple to build new classes which re-use that functionality and know
it actually works.

>
> What I now prefer to do is keep the interface between a module (or even an
> abstract class) and the class it's mixed into quite clean, and specify that
> re-usable unit in isolation, with an example using a temporary class created
> in the test. I might have one or two specs in the class which mixes in the
> module to prove that the module is mixed in and working, but most of the
> specs for the behaviour of that module itself will live alongside the module
> and run only once.

This is excellent advice regardless of using shared examples, although
it isn't always practical (clean interfaces are always practical, what
isn't is creating new specs with test classes). Some modules are
simply a grouping of certain behaviour that relies on other behaviour
existing on an object. Creating a new test class to put in a spec can
require a good amount of time and thinking based on the functionality
and where what you're module's functionality falls into the overall
chain of dependencies.

There are times to be disciplined and put in that time and thinking.
At other times, it's important to not misplace a bunch of time and
energy if what you're working on doesn't warrant it. Unfortunately,
making knowing when to make good decisions often comes from making bad
ones. So as Corey Haines would suggest, practice practice practice!

>
> As David said earlier there are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches
> so you have to find your own path here. I just wanted to share my
> experience.

Ditto.

-- 
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com (personal)
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com (hire me)
http://ideafoundry.info/behavior-driven-development (first rate BDD training)
@zachdennis (twitter)

From ben.fyvie at champsoftware.com  Thu Jan  7 13:32:43 2010
From: ben.fyvie at champsoftware.com (Ben Fyvie)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:32:43 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Problem with should_not when passing a
	multipleargs to a matcher
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001062319p1ff0afc7ta72ea71f222623b3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4862558A4CDA426D80C03F951C599CA8@champ.net>
	<57c63afe1001062319p1ff0afc7ta72ea71f222623b3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C5158157AEF54DBC85FD4FF05CECF73B@champ.net>

Thanks for looking at this David,

 

Just so I am clear on what you are suggesting:

1.	renaming the "include" matcher to "include_all"

a.	create an alias method for "include" for backwards compatibility

2.	create a new matcher called "include_any"

 

If this is indeed what you are suggesting, I think this would be great! Not
only does it add the functionality we are looking for but the method names
are self documenting and much easier to understand what functionality to
expect from each one.

 

 

Ben Fyvie



  _____  

From: rspec-users-bounces at rubyforge.org
[mailto:rspec-users-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of David Chelimsky
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 1:19 AM
To: rspec-users
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] Problem with should_not when passing a
multipleargs to a matcher

 

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Ben Fyvie <ben.fyvie at champsoftware.com>
wrote:

We seem to be hitting some undesirable behavior with should_not in
combination with matchers that accept collections. Let me use the "include"
matcher for example (a co-worker reported similar problems using "be_any" so
I don't believe this is limited to "include"). The RDoc states:

Passes if actual includes expected. This works for collections and Strings.
You can also pass in multiple args and it will only pass if all args are
found in collection.

Examples

[1,2,3].should include(3)

[1,2,3].should include(2,3) #would pass

[1,2,3].should include(2,3,4) #would fail

[1,2,3].should_not include(4)

"spread".should include("read")

"spread".should_not include("red")

 

The RDoc doesn't give any examples of using a "should_not" along with
multiple args being passed to "include", but since I couldn't find any
documentation on why it would not work I assume that it should work. Here is
a list of tests I came up with to find out what works and what doesn't.
Note: All of these tests SHOULD fail; the problem is with the tests that do
NOT fail.

    it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should\" with
multiple args" do

      [1,2,3].should include(2,3,4)

    end

 

    it "does NOT properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\"
with multiple args when at least one value in the expected args is in the
actual collection" do

      [1,2,3].should_not include(3,4,5)

    end

 

    it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\" with
multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
collection" do

      [1,2,3].should_not include(1,2,3)

    end

 

    it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\" with
multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
collection and when the expected args don't cover all of the values in the
actual collection" do

      [1,2,3].should_not include(1,2)

    end

 

    it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\" with a
single arg" do

      [1,2,3].should_not include(3)

    end

 

    it "does properly fail on a string when using \"should_not\" with
multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
string" do

      "abc".should_not include("a", "b", "c")

    end

 

    it "does NOT properly fail when using \"should_not\" with multiple args
when at least one of the values in the expected args is in the actual
string" do

      "abc".should_not include("a", "b", "e")

    end

 

    it "does properly fail on a string when using \"should_not\" with
multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
collection and when the expected args don't cover all of the values in the
actual string" do

      "abc".should_not include("a","b")

    end

 

    it "does properly fail on a string when using \"should_not\" with a
single arg" do

      "abc".should_not include("a")

    end

 

We are using the following rspec gems:

Rspec-1.2.9

Rspec-rails-1.2.7.1

 

So I think one of two things needs to happen here dependent on whether this
is desired behavior or not.

1. If this is desired behavior then an exception really should be raised if
you try to use "should_not" in combination with passing a collection to a
matcher. At the very least there needs to be some documentation to inform
RSpec users that tests will not always fail as they might expect when using
"should_not" in combination with a matcher that accepts multiple args. 

2. If this is not desired behavior then of course we need a fix. 

I apologize if this has been brought up previously; I did as much searching
on this issue as possible.

Thanks in advance!

Ben Fyvie

 

Hi Ben,

 

First, thank you for such a detailed, yet grok'able report.

 

Second - I don't agree with your assessment that this is working incorrectly
:)

 

Unless I'm misreading your assessment, I'm reading that you expect "should
include(*args)" to mean "should include ALL of these args" whereas
"should_not include(*args)" means "should not include ANY of these args."

 

Make sense?

 

IMO, I think this is a documentation problem and that it is neither in need
of an exception, nor in need of a fix.

 

That said, perhaps we need a couple of matchers: include_all and
include_any, with include being an alias for include_all. That would
certainly clear up the confusion. WDYT?

 

Cheers,

David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100107/d9e0ab16/attachment-0001.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jan  7 14:15:53 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:15:53 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Problem with should_not when passing a
	multipleargs to a matcher
In-Reply-To: <C5158157AEF54DBC85FD4FF05CECF73B@champ.net>
References: <4862558A4CDA426D80C03F951C599CA8@champ.net>
	<57c63afe1001062319p1ff0afc7ta72ea71f222623b3@mail.gmail.com>
	<C5158157AEF54DBC85FD4FF05CECF73B@champ.net>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001071115j687ed513o7156dda1b009e0bb@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Ben Fyvie <ben.fyvie at champsoftware.com>wrote:

>  Thanks for looking at this David,
>
>
>
> Just so I am clear on what you are suggesting:
>
>    1. renaming the ?include? matcher to ?include_all?
>       1. create an alias method for ?include? for backwards compatibility
>    2. create a new matcher called ?include_any?
>
>
Yep.

>
>
> If this is indeed what you are suggesting, I think this would be great! Not
> only does it add the functionality we are looking for but the method names
> are self documenting and much easier to understand what functionality to
> expect from each one.
>
Cool. I'm not sure when I'll get to this, but I'm pretty sure this would
work for you for now (untested):

Spec::Matchers.define :include_all do |*expected|
  match do |actual|
    expected.all? {|e| actual.include?(e)}
  end
end

Spec::Matchers.define :include_any do |*expected|
  match do |actual|
    expected.any? {|e| actual.include?(e)}
  end
end

Cheers,
David

>
>
>
>
> Ben Fyvie
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* rspec-users-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:
> rspec-users-bounces at rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *David Chelimsky
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 07, 2010 1:19 AM
> *To:* rspec-users
> *Subject:* Re: [rspec-users] Problem with should_not when passing a
> multipleargs to a matcher
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Ben Fyvie <ben.fyvie at champsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>  We seem to be hitting some undesirable behavior with should_not in
> combination with matchers that accept collections. Let me use the ?include?
> matcher for example (a co-worker reported similar problems using ?be_any? so
> I don?t believe this is limited to ?include?). The RDoc states:
>
> Passes if actual includes expected. This works for collections and Strings.
> You can also pass in multiple args and it will only pass if all args are
> found in collection.
>
> Examples
>
> [1,2,3].should include(3)
>
> [1,2,3].should include(2,3) #would pass
>
> [1,2,3].should include(2,3,4) #would fail
>
> [1,2,3].should_not include(4)
>
> "spread".should include("read")
>
> "spread".should_not include("red")
>
>
>
> The RDoc doesn?t give any examples of using a ?should_not? along with
> multiple args being passed to ?include?, but since I couldn?t find any
> documentation on why it would not work I assume that it should work. Here is
> a list of tests I came up with to find out what works and what doesn?t.
> Note: All of these tests SHOULD fail; the problem is with the tests that do
> NOT fail.
>
>     it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should\" with
> multiple args" do
>
>       [1,2,3].should include(2,3,4)
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does NOT properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\"
> with multiple args when at least one value in the expected args is in the
> actual collection" do
>
>       [1,2,3].should_not include(3,4,5)
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\" with
> multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
> collection" do
>
>       [1,2,3].should_not include(1,2,3)
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\" with
> multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
> collection and when the expected args don't cover all of the values in the
> actual collection" do
>
>       [1,2,3].should_not include(1,2)
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does properly fail on a collection when using \"should_not\" with a
> single arg" do
>
>       [1,2,3].should_not include(3)
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does properly fail on a string when using \"should_not\" with
> multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
> string" do
>
>       "abc".should_not include("a", "b", "c")
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does NOT properly fail when using \"should_not\" with multiple args
> when at least one of the values in the expected args is in the actual
> string" do
>
>       "abc".should_not include("a", "b", "e")
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does properly fail on a string when using \"should_not\" with
> multiple args when all of the values in the expected args are in the actual
> collection and when the expected args don't cover all of the values in the
> actual string" do
>
>       "abc".should_not include("a","b")
>
>     end
>
>
>
>     it "does properly fail on a string when using \"should_not\" with a
> single arg" do
>
>       "abc".should_not include("a")
>
>     end
>
>
>
> We are using the following rspec gems:
>
> Rspec-1.2.9
>
> Rspec-rails-1.2.7.1
>
>
>
> So I think one of two things needs to happen here dependent on whether this
> is desired behavior or not.
>
> 1. If this is desired behavior then an exception really should be raised if
> you try to use ?should_not? in combination with passing a collection to a
> matcher. At the very least there needs to be some documentation to inform
> RSpec users that tests will not always fail as they might expect when using
> ?should_not? in combination with a matcher that accepts multiple args.
>
> 2. If this is not desired behavior then of course we need a fix.
>
> I apologize if this has been brought up previously; I did as much searching
> on this issue as possible.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Ben Fyvie
>
>
>
> Hi Ben,
>
>
>
> First, thank you for such a detailed, yet grok'able report.
>
>
>
> Second - I don't agree with your assessment that this is working
> incorrectly :)
>
>
>
> Unless I'm misreading your assessment, I'm reading that you expect "should
> include(*args)" to mean "should include ALL of these args" whereas
> "should_not include(*args)" means "should not include ANY of these args."
>
>
>
> Make sense?
>
>
>
> IMO, I think this is a documentation problem and that it is neither in need
> of an exception, nor in need of a fix.
>
>
>
> That said, perhaps we need a couple of matchers: include_all and
> include_any, with include being an alias for include_all. That would
> certainly clear up the confusion. WDYT?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100107/c5987897/attachment.html>

From ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk  Thu Jan  7 14:23:32 2010
From: ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:23:32 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Problem with should_not when passing a
	multipleargs to a matcher
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001071115j687ed513o7156dda1b009e0bb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4862558A4CDA426D80C03F951C599CA8@champ.net>
	<57c63afe1001062319p1ff0afc7ta72ea71f222623b3@mail.gmail.com>
	<C5158157AEF54DBC85FD4FF05CECF73B@champ.net>
	<57c63afe1001071115j687ed513o7156dda1b009e0bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BA9B991D-716C-48A3-A98D-BE0383180405@patchspace.co.uk>


On 7 Jan 2010, at 19:15, David Chelimsky wrote:

> Cool. I'm not sure when I'll get to this, but I'm pretty sure this would work for you for now (untested):
> 
> Spec::Matchers.define :include_all do |*expected|
>   match do |actual|
>     expected.all? {|e| actual.include?(e)}
>   end
> end
> 
> Spec::Matchers.define :include_any do |*expected|
>   match do |actual|
>     expected.any? {|e| actual.include?(e)}
>   end
> end

Hi Ben/David

If it's any help, I've been using three extra matchers for a while now:

  * include_all_once
  * include_all_at_least_times
  * include_any

I've put them in a gist[1], as the code to produce the error messages makes them a bit verbose.

HTH
Ashley

[1] http://gist.github.com/271475

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran




From fausto.galli at email.it  Fri Jan  8 08:24:32 2010
From: fausto.galli at email.it (mix)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 05:24:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] How call a method/something after ALL specs?
Message-ID: <bda82ab5-f71f-4ca5-9101-b5ac39126951@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>

hi, is there a way to call a method/print something after ALL the
specs are run ? (with all, i mean all, after all the spec files, just
before the rspec output which say how many spec have passed)..

i want to print some text telling which is the average response time
and which is the action which takes more time

I've tried with the ruby at_exit method, but it puts the result 3
times, any hint?

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jan  8 08:48:26 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 07:48:26 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] How call a method/something after ALL specs?
In-Reply-To: <bda82ab5-f71f-4ca5-9101-b5ac39126951@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <bda82ab5-f71f-4ca5-9101-b5ac39126951@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001080548k56b79e91q8366f0f73e780c4e@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:24 AM, mix <fausto.galli at email.it> wrote:

> hi, is there a way to call a method/print something after ALL the
> specs are run ? (with all, i mean all, after all the spec files, just
> before the rspec output which say how many spec have passed)..
>
> i want to print some text telling which is the average response time
> and which is the action which takes more time
>
> I've tried with the ruby at_exit method, but it puts the result 3
> times, any hint?
>

Best bet is probably a custom formatter. I'd make a subclass of the
formatter you want to use, for example
Spec::Runner::Formatter::ProgressBarFormatter, and override the dump_summary
method (which is defined in Spec::Runner::Formatter::BaseTextFormatter).

Then you can say:

spec spec --formatter <path/to/your/custom/formatter>

HTH,
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100108/c66fac91/attachment.html>

From sean at clipperadams.com  Fri Jan  8 22:37:13 2010
From: sean at clipperadams.com (DeNigris Sean)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:37:13 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing through multiple layers
Message-ID: <75262705-0B32-48BF-9555-8271CE607E58@clipperadams.com>

Hi list,

I'm writing an example for a class that represents the "pickaxe" e-book, which I view in Preview.app:

describe PickaxeBook do
...
	it "should tell whether it's ready to read" do
		preview = stub('preview')
		preview.stub!(:******this is what I'm not sure about - see below*******).returns("programming_ruby_1.9.pdf")

		my_pickaxe_book = PickaxeBook.new(preview)

		my_pickaxe_book.should be_ready_to_read
	end
end

class PickaxeBook
...
	def ready_to_read?
		#****** this is the dependency I want to stub: preview.front_window.title ********
		preview.front_window.title =~ /programming_ruby_1.9\.pdf.*/
	end
end

Can you see the problem?  ready_to_read wants to query the object returned by front_window, but how do I stub that?  I should note that the Preview class is in a different library, which is why I don't just change front_window.title

I thought of a few things, like introducing a role (something like "PreviewInfoRetriever") with a method "front_window_title" that forwards to preview.front_window.title, but that seems like a lot of complexity.

To summarize: what's the best way to handle a dependency like object.method.method?

Thanks!

Sean DeNigris
sean at clipperadams.com




From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jan  9 07:02:59 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 06:02:59 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing through multiple layers
In-Reply-To: <75262705-0B32-48BF-9555-8271CE607E58@clipperadams.com>
References: <75262705-0B32-48BF-9555-8271CE607E58@clipperadams.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001090402v36f17bafp1540aade31e256d2@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:37 PM, DeNigris Sean <sean at clipperadams.com> wrote:

> Hi list,
>
> I'm writing an example for a class that represents the "pickaxe" e-book,
> which I view in Preview.app:
>
> describe PickaxeBook do
> ...
>        it "should tell whether it's ready to read" do
>                preview = stub('preview')
>                preview.stub!(:******this is what I'm not sure about - see
> below*******).returns("programming_ruby_1.9.pdf")
>
>                my_pickaxe_book = PickaxeBook.new(preview)
>
>                my_pickaxe_book.should be_ready_to_read
>        end
> end
>
> class PickaxeBook
> ...
>        def ready_to_read?
>                #****** this is the dependency I want to stub:
> preview.front_window.title ********
>                preview.front_window.title =~ /programming_ruby_1.9\.pdf.*/
>        end
> end
>
> Can you see the problem?  ready_to_read wants to query the object returned
> by front_window, but how do I stub that?  I should note that the Preview
> class is in a different library, which is why I don't just change
> front_window.title
>
> I thought of a few things, like introducing a role (something like
> "PreviewInfoRetriever") with a method "front_window_title" that forwards to
> preview.front_window.title, but that seems like a lot of complexity.
>
> To summarize: what's the best way to handle a dependency like
> object.method.method?
>

There is no universally best way. Stubbing it is fairly straightforward:

  window = stub('window', :title => "programming_ruby_1.9.pdf")
  preview = stub('preview', :front_window => window)

The risk is that this example is now bound to the internal structure of an
object provided by a 3rd party, which can change in a future release. If
that happened, this example might continue passing with a false positive,
and the app won't work.

If you have good high level specs with something like Cucumber or FitNesse,
this risk is diminished. You'll still have to change the example when the
internal structure of Preview changes, but you're less likely to get burned
by deploying code that passes its tests but doesn't work.

If it's easy and inexpensive to create a real instance of Preview, I'd
sooner do that.

HTH,
David


> Thanks!
>
> Sean DeNigris
> sean at clipperadams.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100109/5e5473e5/attachment.html>

From matt at mattwynne.net  Sat Jan  9 07:28:27 2010
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 12:28:27 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing through multiple layers
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001090402v36f17bafp1540aade31e256d2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <75262705-0B32-48BF-9555-8271CE607E58@clipperadams.com>
	<57c63afe1001090402v36f17bafp1540aade31e256d2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <65A2622F-EFB3-491D-9195-07E8E27309DE@mattwynne.net>


On 9 Jan 2010, at 12:02, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:37 PM, DeNigris Sean  
> <sean at clipperadams.com> wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I'm writing an example for a class that represents the "pickaxe" e- 
> book, which I view in Preview.app:
>
> describe PickaxeBook do
> ...
>        it "should tell whether it's ready to read" do
>                preview = stub('preview')
>                preview.stub!(:******this is what I'm not sure about  
> - see below*******).returns("programming_ruby_1.9.pdf")
>
>                my_pickaxe_book = PickaxeBook.new(preview)
>
>                my_pickaxe_book.should be_ready_to_read
>        end
> end
>
> class PickaxeBook
> ...
>        def ready_to_read?
>                #****** this is the dependency I want to stub:  
> preview.front_window.title ********
>                preview.front_window.title =~ / 
> programming_ruby_1.9\.pdf.*/
>        end
> end
>
> Can you see the problem?  ready_to_read wants to query the object  
> returned by front_window, but how do I stub that?  I should note  
> that the Preview class is in a different library, which is why I  
> don't just change front_window.title
>
> I thought of a few things, like introducing a role (something like  
> "PreviewInfoRetriever") with a method "front_window_title" that  
> forwards to preview.front_window.title, but that seems like a lot of  
> complexity.
>
> To summarize: what's the best way to handle a dependency like  
> object.method.method?
>
> There is no universally best way. Stubbing it is fairly  
> straightforward:
>
>   window = stub('window', :title => "programming_ruby_1.9.pdf")
>   preview = stub('preview', :front_window => window)
>
> The risk is that this example is now bound to the internal structure  
> of an object provided by a 3rd party, which can change in a future  
> release. If that happened, this example might continue passing with  
> a false positive, and the app won't work.
>
> If you have good high level specs with something like Cucumber or  
> FitNesse, this risk is diminished. You'll still have to change the  
> example when the internal structure of Preview changes, but you're  
> less likely to get burned by deploying code that passes its tests  
> but doesn't work.
>
> If it's easy and inexpensive to create a real instance of Preview,  
> I'd sooner do that.

Or wrap the Preview object with your own (maybe PreviewWindow?) and  
offer a #has_title? method on that wrapper.

>
> HTH,
> David
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sean DeNigris
> sean at clipperadams.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

cheers,
Matt

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Sat Jan  9 13:33:26 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:33:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] more verbosity for be_an?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0912301219l43937dc6he78256e600eeeb30@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d29f3b75-b741-4da3-957b-fafb3fcc39c8@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0912301219l43937dc6he78256e600eeeb30@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2d721d86-2f09-4343-ae34-e02c17fa5b99@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>


> What about something like:
>
> ? expected #<Class:2158174640> => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum

Still in favor of something like this...
:)
-rp

From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Sat Jan  9 13:34:32 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] straight strings?
Message-ID: <beca6f32-a9e7-40c4-a0a3-b8268330bcc1@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

I saw some tests like this the other day:

it "the nodes are the contents of the directory" do
 ...
end

Made me wonder if the idea had been proposed to skip the it, like.


"the nodes are the contents of the directory".do {
 ...
}

or what not.
Thoughts?
-r

From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Sat Jan  9 13:51:04 2010
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:51:04 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] more verbosity for be_an?
In-Reply-To: <2d721d86-2f09-4343-ae34-e02c17fa5b99@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <d29f3b75-b741-4da3-957b-fafb3fcc39c8@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0912301219l43937dc6he78256e600eeeb30@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d721d86-2f09-4343-ae34-e02c17fa5b99@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <deb2337a1001091051u19f464c5q419a8be629efc297@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:33 PM, rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What about something like:
>>
>> ? expected #<Class:2158174640> => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum

Truthfully, I find this much less clear than the original message.

I've got no idea what #<Class:2158174640> => Fixnum means.

Expected Fixnum to be kind of Fixnum makes a lot of sense to me
because I know that x.kind_of? Y means that x is an INSTANCE of Y or
one of it's subclasses, and Fixnum is not a Fixnum but a class.

Pondering this if you don't know that should lead to doing a little
reading and then realizing that you probably wanted

1.should be_a FixNum

instead of

1.class.should be_a Fixnum


-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From tom at experthuman.com  Sat Jan  9 14:38:54 2010
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 19:38:54 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] straight strings?
In-Reply-To: <beca6f32-a9e7-40c4-a0a3-b8268330bcc1@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <beca6f32-a9e7-40c4-a0a3-b8268330bcc1@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <4B8832E0-B29F-44D5-9B02-960DDE056EED@experthuman.com>

On 9 Jan 2010, at 18:34, rogerdpack wrote:
> I saw some tests like this the other day:
> it "the nodes are the contents of the directory" do

In this case I say "specify" instead.

From trusted08 at clipperadams.com  Sat Jan  9 22:38:39 2010
From: trusted08 at clipperadams.com (Sean DeNigris)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 19:38:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing through multiple layers
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001090402v36f17bafp1540aade31e256d2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <75262705-0B32-48BF-9555-8271CE607E58@clipperadams.com> 
	<57c63afe1001090402v36f17bafp1540aade31e256d2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4cfb8f2c-7372-43ea-9cc1-ad4acc46f78b@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>

>   window = stub('window', :title => "programming_ruby_1.9.pdf")
>   preview = stub('preview', :front_window => window)
Perfect - so easy!  Thanks.

> If you have good high level specs with something like Cucumber or FitNesse,
> this risk is diminished. You'll still have to change the example when the
> internal structure of Preview changes, but you're less likely to get burned
> by deploying code that passes its tests but doesn't work.
This is something I've been going back and forth with a lot lately -
how much implementation detail to allow to leak out into the examples/
features.  If I start using software other than Preview to read my
eBooks, obviously all these examples will require reworking.  The
problem is magnified because I do have Cucumber tests that use the
real Preview:

Then /^I should see the pickaxe book$/ do
	front_preview_window = Appscript::app('System Events').processes
['Preview'].windows[1]
	Appscript::app('System Events').processes
['Preview'].frontmost.get.should be(true)
	front_preview_window.name.get.should =~ /programming_ruby_1.9.*
\.pdf.*/
end

Now details about Preview appear in Cucumber and Rspec!  I'm tempted
to put an EBookViewer role in right off the bat (similar to what Matt
sugested), and use it in both the features and examples, but I don't
want to add too much complexity.

I'm very interested in how other people handle external dependencies
in features/examples...

Thanks again!

Sean

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jan 10 08:42:41 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:42:41 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing through multiple layers
In-Reply-To: <4cfb8f2c-7372-43ea-9cc1-ad4acc46f78b@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References: <75262705-0B32-48BF-9555-8271CE607E58@clipperadams.com>
	<57c63afe1001090402v36f17bafp1540aade31e256d2@mail.gmail.com>
	<4cfb8f2c-7372-43ea-9cc1-ad4acc46f78b@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001100542x5e1bb3b0l8c7e3e4f854b6e53@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Sean DeNigris <trusted08 at clipperadams.com>wrote:

> >   window = stub('window', :title => "programming_ruby_1.9.pdf")
> >   preview = stub('preview', :front_window => window)
> Perfect - so easy!  Thanks.
>
> > If you have good high level specs with something like Cucumber or
> FitNesse,
> > this risk is diminished. You'll still have to change the example when the
> > internal structure of Preview changes, but you're less likely to get
> burned
> > by deploying code that passes its tests but doesn't work.
> This is something I've been going back and forth with a lot lately -
> how much implementation detail to allow to leak out into the examples/
> features.  If I start using software other than Preview to read my
> eBooks, obviously all these examples will require reworking.  The
> problem is magnified because I do have Cucumber tests that use the
> real Preview:
>
> Then /^I should see the pickaxe book$/ do
>        front_preview_window = Appscript::app('System Events').processes
> ['Preview'].windows[1]
>        Appscript::app('System Events').processes
> ['Preview'].frontmost.get.should be(true)
>        front_preview_window.name.get.should =~ /programming_ruby_1.9.*
> \.pdf.*/
> end
>
> Now details about Preview appear in Cucumber and Rspec!  I'm tempted
> to put an EBookViewer role in right off the bat (similar to what Matt
> sugested), and use it in both the features and examples, but I don't
> want to add too much complexity.
>

I think it's clear that there is already too much complexity in this case :)

I'd go with the wrapper. It should not be expensive to maintain, and it does
give you the freedom to change the dependencies, localizing the cost of that
change to a single object.


> I'm very interested in how other people handle external dependencies
> in features/examples...
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Sean
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100110/4829b515/attachment.html>

From court3nay at gmail.com  Sun Jan 10 08:40:40 2010
From: court3nay at gmail.com (Courtenay)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 05:40:40 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing through multiple layers
In-Reply-To: <4cfb8f2c-7372-43ea-9cc1-ad4acc46f78b@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References: <75262705-0B32-48BF-9555-8271CE607E58@clipperadams.com>
	<57c63afe1001090402v36f17bafp1540aade31e256d2@mail.gmail.com>
	<4cfb8f2c-7372-43ea-9cc1-ad4acc46f78b@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <4b430c8f1001100540x45ed6f56u900e301de36c1bbd@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Sean DeNigris
<trusted08 at clipperadams.com> wrote:
>> ? window = stub('window', :title => "programming_ruby_1.9.pdf")
>> ? preview = stub('preview', :front_window => window)
> Perfect - so easy! ?Thanks.
>

There's also stub_chain, which is probably a Bad Thing but helps break
through layers of dependencies.

From onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com  Sun Jan 10 16:22:28 2010
From: onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com (Onno van der Straaten)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:22:28 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Code for the RSpec book
Message-ID: <be8e7a531001101322h7c4cfd78w69a72b2232ee0ffd@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
I'm trying to download the code for the RSpec book from github
http://wiki.github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/code-for-the-rspec-book-beta.

When I click 'Download Source' a window with a busy icon appears and then
nothing happens. I am using FireFox and Linux Mint.

Any thoughts on this? Is this a GitHub issue? is there a alternate location
to get the source for the book?
Thanks and Regards,
Onno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100110/e1a7b0a7/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jan 10 21:55:46 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:55:46 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Code for the RSpec book
In-Reply-To: <be8e7a531001101322h7c4cfd78w69a72b2232ee0ffd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <be8e7a531001101322h7c4cfd78w69a72b2232ee0ffd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001101855u1c6ef4f3y3f25aabc28becc85@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Onno van der Straaten <
onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm trying to download the code for the RSpec book from github
> http://wiki.github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/code-for-the-rspec-book-beta.
>
> When I click 'Download Source' a window with a busy icon appears and then
> nothing happens. I am using FireFox and Linux Mint.
>
> Any thoughts on this? Is this a GitHub issue? is there a alternate location
> to get the source for the book?
>

Github does not host The RSpec Book. That was just the easiest place for me
to post information about what library versions you need.

The source code for the exercises in The RSpec Book can be downloaded from
http://pragprog.com/titles/achbd/source_code.

Cheers,
David


> Thanks and Regards,
> Onno
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100110/298ca2b3/attachment.html>

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Sun Jan 10 23:58:24 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nick Hoffman)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:58:24 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
Message-ID: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>

Hey guys. I'm having some trouble with a route spec. In routes.rb , I
have:
    map.connect 'foods/search/:name', :controller => :foods, :action =>
:search

foods_controller_spec.rb has: http://codepad.org/dg3FERKw
Unfortunately, that fails: http://codepad.org/lck4r1S0

After reading the rspec-rails 1.2.0 upgrade notes (http://tr.im/K1zx), I
haven't been able to figure out what I'm doing wrong. Any hints?

Thanks!
Nick

PS: I'm using 1.2.9 and Rails 2.3.4 .
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Mon Jan 11 01:40:11 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Amit Kulkarni)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:40:11 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <8f6569048bcdaa178282f69aaa31c4c0@ruby-forum.com>

Nick Hoffman wrote:
> Hey guys. I'm having some trouble with a route spec. In routes.rb , I
> have:
>     map.connect 'foods/search/:name', :controller => :foods, :action =>
> :search
> 
> foods_controller_spec.rb has: http://codepad.org/dg3FERKw
> Unfortunately, that fails: http://codepad.org/lck4r1S0
> 
> After reading the rspec-rails 1.2.0 upgrade notes (http://tr.im/K1zx), I
> haven't been able to figure out what I'm doing wrong. Any hints?
> 
> Thanks!
> Nick
> 
> PS: I'm using 1.2.9 and Rails 2.3.4 .
Hi Nick,
You need to add quotes while writing in routs.rb file.
So your route will be define as :
map.connect 'foods/search/:name', :controller => 'foods', :action => 
'search'
Now try running the code again.You will see it pass.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Mon Jan 11 01:56:48 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nick Hoffman)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:56:48 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <8f6569048bcdaa178282f69aaa31c4c0@ruby-forum.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
	<8f6569048bcdaa178282f69aaa31c4c0@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <bace304f2c883908ddbefa9856ca499c@ruby-forum.com>

Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> Nick Hoffman wrote:
>> Hey guys. I'm having some trouble with a route spec. In routes.rb , I
>> have:
>>     map.connect 'foods/search/:name', :controller => :foods, :action =>
>> :search
>> 
>> foods_controller_spec.rb has: http://codepad.org/dg3FERKw
>> Unfortunately, that fails: http://codepad.org/lck4r1S0
>> 
>> After reading the rspec-rails 1.2.0 upgrade notes (http://tr.im/K1zx), I
>> haven't been able to figure out what I'm doing wrong. Any hints?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Nick
>> 
>> PS: I'm using 1.2.9 and Rails 2.3.4 .

> Hi Nick,
> You need to add quotes while writing in routs.rb file.
> So your route will be define as :
> map.connect 'foods/search/:name', :controller => 'foods', :action => 
> 'search'
> Now try running the code again.You will see it pass.

Thanks for the suggestion, Amit. I changed the symbols to strings. 
Unfortunately, the same error is still occurring: 
http://codepad.org/lck4r1S0
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan 11 08:46:54 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:46:54 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001110546g762cb3e5pfba7227cc8b0b960@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Nick Hoffman <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:

> Hey guys. I'm having some trouble with a route spec. In routes.rb , I
> have:
>    map.connect 'foods/search/:name', :controller => :foods, :action =>
> :search
>
> foods_controller_spec.rb has: http://codepad.org/dg3FERKw
> Unfortunately, that fails: http://codepad.org/lck4r1S0
>
> After reading the rspec-rails 1.2.0 upgrade notes (http://tr.im/K1zx), I
> haven't been able to figure out what I'm doing wrong. Any hints?
>

I'd recommend using the route_to matcher that was added in 1.2.9 instead.

http://codepad.org/fLcxyA9N
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec-rails/1.2.9/classes/Spec/Rails/Matchers.html#M000029

It's more reliable, and aligns better with the rspec matchers API.

Cheers,
David


>
> Thanks!
> Nick
>
> PS: I'm using 1.2.9 and Rails 2.3.4 .
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100111/f7b5856d/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan 11 22:48:46 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:48:46 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] [ANN] rspec 1.3.0 Released
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001111948p218f59c2k4acd86948f548f51@mail.gmail.com>

rspec version 1.3.0 has been released!

* <http://rspec.info>
* <http://rubyforge.org/projects/rspec>
* <http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/wikis>
* <rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
* <rspec-devel at rubyforge.org>

Behaviour Driven Development for Ruby.

Changes:

### Version 1.3.0 / 2010-01-11

* enhancements
  * capture ExpectationNotMet error by default in matcher DSL
    * supports wrapping other expectations
  * added match_unless_raises to matcher DSL
    * supports easy wrapping of t/u assertions in matchers
    * thanks to Chad Fowler and Glenn Vanderburg for the name
  * add chain to matcher DSL (Joe Ferris - #935)
    * see rdoc for Spec::Matchers
  * and_yield provides configurable eval_context
    * Eric Meyer & David Chelimsky
  * CTRL-C actually stops execution! (Bryan Helmkamp - #911)
  * make drb port configurable (Chris Flipse - #875)
  * changed raise_error to raise_exception (#933)
    * kept raise_error aliased, so this is completely
      backwards compatible

* bug fixes
  * don't define top-level context() method when running in IRB (#899)
  * remove Ruby warning for uninitialized ivar (Bryan Helmkamp - #892)
  * fully qualify reference to Default (Alex Sharp - #895)
  * use runtime version of Test::Unit::VERSION in incompatibility message
    (Ryan Bigg - #916)
  * quote paths in RSpec's own specs so people running in paths with
    spaces in them can achieve green too (Ryan Bigg - #917)
  * ensure drb specs run when EADDRNOTAVAIL (Michael Klett - #881)
  * throw_symbol matcher correctly bubbles errors up (#918)
  * make Rakefile work without Cucumber installed (#919 - devrandom)
  * escape . in regexp (#925)
  * align be_true and be_false with Ruby's conditional semantics (#931)
  * print duplicate nested descriptions (when appropriate) (#936)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100111/e1299c9b/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan 11 22:48:52 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:48:52 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] [ANN] rspec-rails 1.3.0 Released
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001111948i7c64f25dx27e8d162eb0d9fba@mail.gmail.com>

rspec-rails version 1.3.0 has been released!

* <http://rspec.info>
* <http://rubyforge.org/projects/rspec>
* <http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec-rails>
* <http://wiki.github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/rails>
* <rspec-devel at rubyforge.org>

Behaviour Driven Development for Ruby on Rails.

Changes:

### Version 1.3.0 / 2010-01-11

* enhancements
  * use stub() instead of stub!() in generators
  * generate gem config in test.rb with 'script/generate rspec'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100111/4c58c2b9/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan 11 23:16:54 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:16:54 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Chad Humphries
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001112016v4dc456f1sf393c84484b654be@mail.gmail.com>

Welcome Chad Humphries to the Rspec Development Team!

http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2010/01/12/welcome-chad-humphries/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100111/6764b4c9/attachment.html>

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Tue Jan 12 00:22:01 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nick Hoffman)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 06:22:01 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001110546g762cb3e5pfba7227cc8b0b960@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001110546g762cb3e5pfba7227cc8b0b960@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c56159643240ad84282381869776b49e@ruby-forum.com>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> I'd recommend using the route_to matcher that was added in 1.2.9 
> instead.
> 
> http://codepad.org/fLcxyA9N
> http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec-rails/1.2.9/classes/Spec/Rails/Matchers.html#M000029
> 
> It's more reliable, and aligns better with the rspec matchers API.
> 
> Cheers,
> David

Thanks for that, David. I updated my spec (http://codepad.org/F828X7Fg). 
For some reason though, it's still failing: http://codepad.org/s65Ckubc

Just in case, this is what I have in routes.rb: 
http://codepad.org/rJfIhbM6

There must be some tiny detail that I'm missing here...
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From r_j_h_box-sf at yahoo.com  Tue Jan 12 02:06:04 2010
From: r_j_h_box-sf at yahoo.com (Randy Harmon)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:06:04 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <c56159643240ad84282381869776b49e@ruby-forum.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>	<57c63afe1001110546g762cb3e5pfba7227cc8b0b960@mail.gmail.com>
	<c56159643240ad84282381869776b49e@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <4B4C1F5C.3010506@yahoo.com>

On 1/11/10 9:22 PM, Nick Hoffman wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>   
>> I'd recommend using the route_to matcher that was added in 1.2.9 
>> instead.
>>
>> http://codepad.org/fLcxyA9N
>> http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec-rails/1.2.9/classes/Spec/Rails/Matchers.html#M000029
>>
>> It's more reliable, and aligns better with the rspec matchers API.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>     
> Thanks for that, David. I updated my spec (http://codepad.org/F828X7Fg). 
> For some reason though, it's still failing: http://codepad.org/s65Ckubc
>
> Just in case, this is what I have in routes.rb: 
> http://codepad.org/rJfIhbM6
>
> There must be some tiny detail that I'm missing here...
>   
Yes, there must.  I think you've tried to twice define the route, and
the test shows you which one actually is being used.  I'll suggest
commenting out one of those routes at a time, and see whether the new
test results are illuminating. 

Randy


From lists at ruby-forum.com  Tue Jan 12 12:25:20 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nick Hoffman)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:25:20 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <4B4C1F5C.3010506@yahoo.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001110546g762cb3e5pfba7227cc8b0b960@mail.gmail.com>
	<c56159643240ad84282381869776b49e@ruby-forum.com>
	<4B4C1F5C.3010506@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <0cc23fb5c587c4e1232fe5adbbfaa208@ruby-forum.com>

Randy Harmon wrote:
> On 1/11/10 9:22 PM, Nick Hoffman wrote:
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>>     
>> Thanks for that, David. I updated my spec (http://codepad.org/F828X7Fg). 
>> For some reason though, it's still failing: http://codepad.org/s65Ckubc
>>
>> Just in case, this is what I have in routes.rb: 
>> http://codepad.org/rJfIhbM6
>>
>> There must be some tiny detail that I'm missing here...
>>   
> Yes, there must.  I think you've tried to twice define the route, and
> the test shows you which one actually is being used.  I'll suggest
> commenting out one of those routes at a time, and see whether the new
> test results are illuminating.
> 
> Randy

I swapped the order of the 2 lines in routes.rb to this:

    map.connect   'foods/search/:name', :controller => 'foods', :action 
=> 'search'
    map.resources :foods, :collection => {:search => :get}

and the spec passes now.

Thanks, guys!
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Tue Jan 12 12:35:13 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nick Hoffman)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:35:13 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <0cc23fb5c587c4e1232fe5adbbfaa208@ruby-forum.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001110546g762cb3e5pfba7227cc8b0b960@mail.gmail.com>
	<c56159643240ad84282381869776b49e@ruby-forum.com>
	<4B4C1F5C.3010506@yahoo.com>
	<0cc23fb5c587c4e1232fe5adbbfaa208@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <93f60ccf6698a5d0e8d470ce7cc280ec@ruby-forum.com>

By the way, does this spec:
    {:get => '/path'}.should route_to(...)
make this spec redundant?:
    params_from(:get, '/path').should == {...}

They read the same, but it feels like they each check one end of the 
route's translation.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 12 17:40:09 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:40:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] nested steps
Message-ID: <a7617336-2bb9-4f0c-8193-a44b9f6daecb@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>

Question.
Currently rspec appears to allow for a two-step test system, like

context "abc"
  it 'should do y' do
  end
end

It might be convenient to have an arbitrary number of nests, like

context "abc"
  it 'should do y' do

    it 'should also be able to do x'
    end

  end
end

Thoughts?
-r

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jan 12 17:46:36 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:46:36 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] nested steps
In-Reply-To: <a7617336-2bb9-4f0c-8193-a44b9f6daecb@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
References: <a7617336-2bb9-4f0c-8193-a44b9f6daecb@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001121446g3392b95aq4807378b31228ee4@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:40 PM, rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Question.
> Currently rspec appears to allow for a two-step test system, like
>
> context "abc"
>  it 'should do y' do
>  end
> end
>
> It might be convenient to have an arbitrary number of nests, like
>
> context "abc"
>  it 'should do y' do
>
>    it 'should also be able to do x'
>    end
>
>  end
> end
>
> Thoughts?
> -r
>

Why would that be more convenient? Can you give a more concrete example
(with some sample code)?

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100112/2f0cdeb5/attachment.html>

From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 12 17:49:17 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:49:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] default to just call the method?
Message-ID: <8936163d-331b-49c8-aac7-2fc089556f18@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>

Any interest in the following idea?


a.should include?("1:4") # if there's no matcher called include? then
just call include?

or something along those lines?
-r

From matt at mattwynne.net  Tue Jan 12 17:50:11 2010
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:50:11 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] nested steps
In-Reply-To: <a7617336-2bb9-4f0c-8193-a44b9f6daecb@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
References: <a7617336-2bb9-4f0c-8193-a44b9f6daecb@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <76DB06A5-9A23-47AF-A27D-733BB43BF41D@mattwynne.net>


On 12 Jan 2010, at 22:40, rogerdpack wrote:

> Question.
> Currently rspec appears to allow for a two-step test system, like
>
> context "abc"
>  it 'should do y' do
>  end
> end
>
> It might be convenient to have an arbitrary number of nests, like
>
> context "abc"
>  it 'should do y' do
>
>    it 'should also be able to do x'
>    end
>
>  end

You do realise you can already nest contexts don't you? That makes  
much more sense to me than what you've suggested.

> end
>
> Thoughts?
> -r
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

cheers,
Matt

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 12 17:41:46 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:41:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] [ANN] rspec 1.3.0 Released
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001111948p218f59c2k4acd86948f548f51@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57c63afe1001111948p218f59c2k4acd86948f548f51@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2c132262-1951-488d-a59c-82cff4750394@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>

> rspec version 1.3.0 has been released!

Thanks for the release.
-r

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Tue Jan 12 19:46:42 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] nested steps
In-Reply-To: <76DB06A5-9A23-47AF-A27D-733BB43BF41D@mattwynne.net>
References: <a7617336-2bb9-4f0c-8193-a44b9f6daecb@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
	<76DB06A5-9A23-47AF-A27D-733BB43BF41D@mattwynne.net>
Message-ID: <3b3d4608-f403-46c6-acc5-015d9de62359@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>


>
> You do realise you can already nest contexts don't you? That makes ?
> much more sense to me than what you've suggested.
>

Hi Roger,

Here's an example of nesting contexts that Matt is talking about:

http://gist.github.com/275798

Peace,
Phillip

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Tue Jan 12 19:58:41 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Saverio Miroddi)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:58:41 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Stub activerecord find given instance?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0912140439y4c5a00fbtb65d155eccd5426f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <be669cdfa9f395844abcc6e3783f9d1a@ruby-forum.com>
	<4A3616AC-32C2-478C-B20D-DF65FE1C031E@experthuman.com>
	<fa3a50ced2abe969edf8d3992b1b63cd@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe0912140439y4c5a00fbtb65d155eccd5426f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ccd2a6b3458f92cec8e9a2c365ad591d@ruby-forum.com>

David Chelimsky wrote:

>>> MyModel.stub(:find).with(42).and_return(myModel)
>> Didn't work as expected - I'll do a bit of research and post again.
> What is expected? What are you trying to accomplish?

Example in horror-code:

##################################################

class MyController < ApplicationController
  def show
    MyModel.find_by_code( params[:code] )
    head :ok
  end
end

describe "MySuite" do
  it "should" do
    MyModel.stub!( :find_by_code ).with( "abc" ) do
      puts "triggered 'abc'!"
    end

    get :show, :code => "kkk"
  end
end

##################################################

I'm expecting nothing to be printed, instead "triggered 'abc'!" is 
printed.

The example is, as I said, completely meaningless, but would simplify 
some tests in our suites.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jan 12 22:49:09 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:49:09 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Stub activerecord find given instance?
In-Reply-To: <ccd2a6b3458f92cec8e9a2c365ad591d@ruby-forum.com>
References: <be669cdfa9f395844abcc6e3783f9d1a@ruby-forum.com>
	<4A3616AC-32C2-478C-B20D-DF65FE1C031E@experthuman.com>
	<fa3a50ced2abe969edf8d3992b1b63cd@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe0912140439y4c5a00fbtb65d155eccd5426f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ccd2a6b3458f92cec8e9a2c365ad591d@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001121949h444bc715x89fee7e8bc81f84c@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Saverio Miroddi <lists at ruby-forum.com>wrote:

> David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> >>> MyModel.stub(:find).with(42).and_return(myModel)
> >> Didn't work as expected - I'll do a bit of research and post again.
> > What is expected? What are you trying to accomplish?
>
> Example in horror-code:
>
> ##################################################
>
> class MyController < ApplicationController
>  def show
>    MyModel.find_by_code( params[:code] )
>    head :ok
>  end
> end
>
> describe "MySuite" do
>  it "should" do
>    MyModel.stub!( :find_by_code ).with( "abc" ) do
>      puts "triggered 'abc'!"
>    end
>
>    get :show, :code => "kkk"
>  end
> end
>
> ##################################################
>
> I'm expecting nothing to be printed, instead "triggered 'abc'!" is
> printed.
>

That's actually the expected behaviour. When you pass a block to a call to
stub, with, or and_return, the block is evaluated and the resulting value is
returned to the caller. So in the show method, when MyModel.find_by_code(
params[:code] ), the block in the example is invoked.

It'd be much easier to help you if you could provide an example more
representative of what you are actually trying to accomplish.


> The example is, as I said, completely meaningless, but would simplify
> some tests in our suites.
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100112/d3fe4fdd/attachment.html>

From onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com  Wed Jan 13 01:38:03 2010
From: onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com (Onno van der Straaten)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:38:03 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber generator
Message-ID: <be8e7a531001122238g3c085334va096c8cca56320b2@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
I'm new to RSpec and Cucumber and I'm following the RSpec book.

I have cucumber gem installed but when I use script/generate cucumber it
responds with Couldn't find 'cucumber' generator?
Thanks,
Onno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100113/7682fbe9/attachment.html>

From benjamin.lovell at gmail.com  Wed Jan 13 02:32:18 2010
From: benjamin.lovell at gmail.com (Ben Lovell)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:32:18 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber generator
In-Reply-To: <be8e7a531001122238g3c085334va096c8cca56320b2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <be8e7a531001122238g3c085334va096c8cca56320b2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EB7C2793-ECA3-46E5-BD9B-F4336AA28968@gmail.com>

Try

gem install cucumber-rails

In a recent release the generators were split from the main project.

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Jan 2010, at 06:38, Onno van der Straaten <onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com 
 > wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm new to RSpec and Cucumber and I'm following the RSpec book.
>
> I have cucumber gem installed but when I use script/generate  
> cucumber it responds with Couldn't find 'cucumber' generator?
> Thanks,
> Onno
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jan 13 09:33:12 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:33:12 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <93f60ccf6698a5d0e8d470ce7cc280ec@ruby-forum.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001110546g762cb3e5pfba7227cc8b0b960@mail.gmail.com>
	<c56159643240ad84282381869776b49e@ruby-forum.com>
	<4B4C1F5C.3010506@yahoo.com>
	<0cc23fb5c587c4e1232fe5adbbfaa208@ruby-forum.com>
	<93f60ccf6698a5d0e8d470ce7cc280ec@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001130633l3d96bb9ev657c760c5d31ce61@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Nick Hoffman <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:

> By the way, does this spec:
>    {:get => '/path'}.should route_to(...)
> make this spec redundant?:
>    params_from(:get, '/path').should == {...}
>

Yes - route_to checks both sides of the translation.


> They read the same, but it feels like they each check one end of the
> route's translation.
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100113/5158766f/attachment.html>

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Wed Jan 13 11:20:27 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nick Hoffman)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:20:27 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001130633l3d96bb9ev657c760c5d31ce61@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001110546g762cb3e5pfba7227cc8b0b960@mail.gmail.com>
	<c56159643240ad84282381869776b49e@ruby-forum.com>
	<4B4C1F5C.3010506@yahoo.com>
	<0cc23fb5c587c4e1232fe5adbbfaa208@ruby-forum.com>
	<93f60ccf6698a5d0e8d470ce7cc280ec@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001130633l3d96bb9ev657c760c5d31ce61@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e189332d2792fa4816ad61861127fb3f@ruby-forum.com>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Nick Hoffman <lists at ruby-forum.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> By the way, does this spec:
>>    {:get => '/path'}.should route_to(...)
>> make this spec redundant?:
>>    params_from(:get, '/path').should == {...}
>>
> 
> Yes - route_to checks both sides of the translation.

Great, thanks for that, David! And thanks again for all of your sweat 
and blood with RSpec and RSpec-Rails!
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jan 13 11:27:47 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:27:47 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <e189332d2792fa4816ad61861127fb3f@ruby-forum.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001110546g762cb3e5pfba7227cc8b0b960@mail.gmail.com>
	<c56159643240ad84282381869776b49e@ruby-forum.com>
	<4B4C1F5C.3010506@yahoo.com>
	<0cc23fb5c587c4e1232fe5adbbfaa208@ruby-forum.com>
	<93f60ccf6698a5d0e8d470ce7cc280ec@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001130633l3d96bb9ev657c760c5d31ce61@mail.gmail.com>
	<e189332d2792fa4816ad61861127fb3f@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001130827m4b1d1cdan30799db17b98a163@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Nick Hoffman <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:

> David Chelimsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Nick Hoffman <lists at ruby-forum.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> By the way, does this spec:
> >>    {:get => '/path'}.should route_to(...)
> >> make this spec redundant?:
> >>    params_from(:get, '/path').should == {...}
> >>
> >
> > Yes - route_to checks both sides of the translation.
>
> Great, thanks for that, David!


Thank Randy Harmon for this one.  It was he who recognized and solved the
problems with params_from by adding the route_to matcher.


> And thanks again for all of your sweat
> and blood with RSpec and RSpec-Rails!
>

It's a labor of love, but you're welcome :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100113/b09680ec/attachment.html>

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Wed Jan 13 12:57:48 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nick Hoffman)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:57:48 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001130827m4b1d1cdan30799db17b98a163@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001110546g762cb3e5pfba7227cc8b0b960@mail.gmail.com>
	<c56159643240ad84282381869776b49e@ruby-forum.com>
	<4B4C1F5C.3010506@yahoo.com>
	<0cc23fb5c587c4e1232fe5adbbfaa208@ruby-forum.com>
	<93f60ccf6698a5d0e8d470ce7cc280ec@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001130633l3d96bb9ev657c760c5d31ce61@mail.gmail.com>
	<e189332d2792fa4816ad61861127fb3f@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001130827m4b1d1cdan30799db17b98a163@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e80a7f5563cf239dadea8c5ff170edb3@ruby-forum.com>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Nick Hoffman <lists at ruby-forum.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> > Yes - route_to checks both sides of the translation.
>>
>> Great, thanks for that, David!
> 
> 
> Thank Randy Harmon for this one.  It was he who recognized and solved 
> the
> problems with params_from by adding the route_to matcher.

Whoops, you're right. Thanks, Randy!
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 13 13:28:29 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:28:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] nested steps
In-Reply-To: <76DB06A5-9A23-47AF-A27D-733BB43BF41D@mattwynne.net>
References: <a7617336-2bb9-4f0c-8193-a44b9f6daecb@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
	<76DB06A5-9A23-47AF-A27D-733BB43BF41D@mattwynne.net>
Message-ID: <063ba53f-582e-48df-96f5-a640a4f87716@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>

> You do realise you can already nest contexts don't you? That makes ?
> much more sense to me than what you've suggested.

Ahh that is what I lacked.

That should suffice.
Thanks!
-r

From onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com  Wed Jan 13 14:16:12 2010
From: onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com (Onno van der Straaten)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:16:12 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber generator
In-Reply-To: <EB7C2793-ECA3-46E5-BD9B-F4336AA28968@gmail.com>
References: <be8e7a531001122238g3c085334va096c8cca56320b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<EB7C2793-ECA3-46E5-BD9B-F4336AA28968@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <be8e7a531001131116p176a80c5vdb21a5970697da95@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks!

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Ben Lovell <benjamin.lovell at gmail.com>wrote:

> Try
>
> gem install cucumber-rails
>
> In a recent release the generators were split from the main project.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 13 Jan 2010, at 06:38, Onno van der Straaten <
> onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>> I'm new to RSpec and Cucumber and I'm following the RSpec book.
>>
>> I have cucumber gem installed but when I use script/generate cucumber it
>> responds with Couldn't find 'cucumber' generator?
>> Thanks,
>> Onno
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100113/a2f80b31/attachment.html>

From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 13 21:43:27 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] test-unit oddities
Message-ID: <f854123f-c61b-4485-bc78-767f1155bb13@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>

I think I've tracked down why rspec dislikes test-unit gems > 1.3.5

this code:

gem 'rails', '= 2.3.5'

puts $LOAD_PATH.find{|l| l.instance_variables.include?
(:@gem_prelude_index)}
puts $LOAD_PATH.uniq.find{|l| l.instance_variables.include?
(:@gem_prelude_index)}

[if you take off the '= 2.3.5' it gives different results]
Anyway rails itself ends up doing a

$LOAD_PATH.uniq!

which clears the gem_prelude_index, causing test-unit '= 1.3.5' to be
added at the end of $LOAD_PATH, which means that its brother , v
2.0.6, precedes it, and gets loaded.

so the question is...whose fault is this? gems? rails?

-r

From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 13 22:18:27 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] test-unit oddities
In-Reply-To: <f854123f-c61b-4485-bc78-767f1155bb13@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
References: <f854123f-c61b-4485-bc78-767f1155bb13@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <5364f14a-7f6c-40d1-b0f0-934d6b9d9b02@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>

> so the question is...whose fault is this? gems? rails?

I think it's rails' fault for not being careful when running
$LOAD_PATH.uniq!
...
-r

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Thu Jan 14 06:46:19 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (John Polling)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:46:19 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
Message-ID: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>

Hi,

I've been a .Net developer for a number of years now and I'm a big fan
of TDD / BDD.  I have been following these principles for a couple of
years and use tools such as NUnit for testing purposes.

I am now looking at moving across to using RoR for a number of projects
and I'm still getting my head around how everything works.  I've been
reading up on RSpec and Cucumber and I have one question looming in my
head.  (This may be my .Net head messing things up for me).

Normally in .Net when TDDing a controller class I would mock out other
library classes that the controller calls, such as Repository layer
classes.  However I notice when using Cucumber people _very_ rarely mock
anything and I'm assuming this is because Cucumber is meant for testing
the full stack (Integration testing).  I'd normally do this with
something like Selenium in .Net.

My question is, when creating a controller (or other class) that relies
on other library classes is it best to just use RSpec rather than
Cucumber to mock out the other dependencies and then bring in Cucumber
scenarios later when you know your RSpec tests are passing?

Thanks

John
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 07:15:23 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:15:23 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:46 AM, John Polling <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've been a .Net developer for a number of years now and I'm a big fan
> of TDD / BDD.  I have been following these principles for a couple of
> years and use tools such as NUnit for testing purposes.
>
> I am now looking at moving across to using RoR for a number of projects
> and I'm still getting my head around how everything works.  I've been
> reading up on RSpec and Cucumber and I have one question looming in my
> head.  (This may be my .Net head messing things up for me).
>
> Normally in .Net when TDDing a controller class I would mock out other
> library classes that the controller calls, such as Repository layer
> classes.  However I notice when using Cucumber people _very_ rarely mock
> anything and I'm assuming this is because Cucumber is meant for testing
> the full stack (Integration testing).


Cucumber is intended for Acceptance Testing. The entry point into the system
can vary. With Rails you can go through the browser (driving Selenium,
Watir, etc from Cucumber), start at the router, or even go directly to the
model in cases where that's appropriate.

re: Integration testing, everybody has a different definition. Before Rails
came along, the prevalent definition that I was aware of was "testing the
behaviour of two non-trivial components together."

More recently, the definition that makes most sense to me comes from Growing
Object Oriented Software [1]. I don't have the book in front of me, but from
memory it is something like "testing your code with other code that you
don't have any control over." Because we need a database for all levels of
Rails testing, this suggests that all Rails testing is Integration Testing.

In Rails' terminology, however, "integration testing" means very
specifically testing the full stack minus the browser.


> I'd normally do this with something like Selenium in .Net.
>

> My question is, when creating a controller (or other class) that relies
> on other library classes is it best to just use RSpec rather than
> Cucumber to mock out the other dependencies and then bring in Cucumber
> scenarios later when you know your RSpec tests are passing?
>

"is it best?" is always relative. YMMV. That said, the outside-in process of
BDD using Cucumber and RSpec together works well like this (borrowed and
modified from the 2nd post in
http://groups.google.com/group/cukes/browse_thread/thread/2598d6fcd29bfd86):

1) Identify business need (the very outside)
2) Discuss what feature would solve this need (feature injection)
3) Write a Cucumber scenario that interacts with the system boundaries (that
have yet to be written)
4) Run the scenario and watch it fail because the code doesn't exist yet
5) Write a little piece of the system boundary code that was missing and
caused the test to fail
6) Run the scenario and watch it fail again, this time because the
code doesn't do what it needs to yet
7) Write a code example in RSpec
8) Run the code example and watch it fail
9) Write enough code to make it pass
10) Run the scenario and check its status
11) Repeat 7-10 until you have enough code (and not more than just enough)
to make the scenario pass.

One catch-phrase that comes to mind is "use Cucumber to learn what code to
write, use RSpec to write the right code."

You should know that there is a trend these days among Cucumber/RSpec/Rails
users to _not_ write controller specs on the basis that controllers are
covered by the Cucumber scenarios. The benefit is a faster suite that
appears to have less duplication between testing layers. The drawback is
that you lose the benefit of discovering model interfaces when you're
specifying the controllers in isolation.

My view is that this makes sense for the boilerplate stuff, but
customizations of the controller are well served with isolated specs in
RSpec.

More answer than you bargained for, I imagine.

HTH,
David

[1]
http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Object-Oriented-Software-Guided-Tests/dp/0321503627


>
> Thanks
>
> John
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100114/a34f5f93/attachment-0001.html>

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Thu Jan 14 07:33:03 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (John Polling)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:33:03 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>

Thanks for this David.

I suppose the thing I am so used to is testing classes in isolation 
whereas Cucumber is about testing everything together.

Do Rails developers generally not test things in isolation using mocking 
and stubbing?

John
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 07:50:16 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:50:16 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001140450h62916cf5t20446f351ee732b5@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:33 AM, John Polling <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:

> Thanks for this David.
>
> I suppose the thing I am so used to is testing classes in isolation
> whereas Cucumber is about testing everything together.
>

Did you do all of your testing in NUnit?

When I was working on .NET apps, I used FitNesse for acceptance testing and
NUnit for isolation testing. With Rails, these same roles are played by
Cucumber and RSpec.


> Do Rails developers generally not test things in isolation using
> mocking and stubbing?
>

Some do all the time, some never do. I probably do more than most, but I've
not experienced a lot of the pain that folks who are new to mocks and stubs
experience. You've got to know when it's appropriate.

HTH,
David

ps - please be sure to quote the relevant portions of the email you're
responding to so people reading email on their phones don't have to go
digging around for context.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100114/2c3c7a19/attachment.html>

From tom at experthuman.com  Thu Jan 14 07:48:47 2010
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:48:47 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <BD047C86-D6F4-45CC-8928-36D5C6EB3EAF@experthuman.com>

On 14 Jan 2010, at 12:33, John Polling wrote:
> Do Rails developers generally not test things in isolation using mocking 
> and stubbing?

Yes, that's what RSpec is for.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Thu Jan 14 08:17:15 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (John Polling)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:17:15 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001140450h62916cf5t20446f351ee732b5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140450h62916cf5t20446f351ee732b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9b9852bfc1c89531bc323f7246bf65e8@ruby-forum.com>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> Did you do all of your testing in NUnit?
> 
> When I was working on .NET apps, I used FitNesse for acceptance testing 
> and
> NUnit for isolation testing. With Rails, these same roles are played by
> Cucumber and RSpec.
> 

Generally what I do is drive all my individual classes out using NUnit 
and Rhino.Mocks and then do the acceptance testing later with FitNesse.

I think this is the part that I'm confusing myself with as most Cucumber 
information talks about using scenarios to drive the code out.  So 
Cucumber comes first, whereas I used to do the Acceptance testing after 
all the other TDD stuff.  Maybe that is me doing it wrong though.

John
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 09:46:27 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:46:27 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <9b9852bfc1c89531bc323f7246bf65e8@ruby-forum.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>	<89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>	<57c63afe1001140450h62916cf5t20446f351ee732b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9b9852bfc1c89531bc323f7246bf65e8@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <4B4F2E43.7010407@gmail.com>



John Polling wrote:
> Generally what I do is drive all my individual classes out using NUnit
> and Rhino.Mocks and then do the acceptance testing later with FitNesse.
>
> I think this is the part that I'm confusing myself with as most Cucumber
> information talks about using scenarios to drive the code out.  So
> Cucumber comes first, whereas I used to do the Acceptance testing after
> all the other TDD stuff.  Maybe that is me doing it wrong though.
>
> John
>    

Hi John. Maybe this will help:

http://www.pragprog.com/titles/achbd/the-rspec-book

It's a good book. But when you get to the part about Webrat and 
Selenium, just know that there are other options if you need them.

Peace,
Phillip

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 09:56:47 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:56:47 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <4B4F2E43.7010407@gmail.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>	<89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>	<57c63afe1001140450h62916cf5t20446f351ee732b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9b9852bfc1c89531bc323f7246bf65e8@ruby-forum.com>
	<4B4F2E43.7010407@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <367BFEAD-5AFF-4296-9A7A-F99556BB3974@gmail.com>

On Jan 14, 2010, at 8:46 AM, Phillip Koebbe wrote:

> John Polling wrote:
>> Generally what I do is drive all my individual classes out using  
>> NUnit
>> and Rhino.Mocks and then do the acceptance testing later with  
>> FitNesse.
>>
>> I think this is the part that I'm confusing myself with as most  
>> Cucumber
>> information talks about using scenarios to drive the code out.  So
>> Cucumber comes first, whereas I used to do the Acceptance testing  
>> after
>> all the other TDD stuff.  Maybe that is me doing it wrong though.
>>
>> John
>>
>
> Hi John. Maybe this will help:
>
> http://www.pragprog.com/titles/achbd/the-rspec-book

D'oh! I should have thought of that! Thanks for the plug :)

Cheers,
David

> It's a good book. But when you get to the part about Webrat and  
> Selenium, just know that there are other options if you need them.
>
> Peace,
> Phillip


From lists at ruby-forum.com  Thu Jan 14 10:13:39 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (John Polling)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:13:39 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <4B4F2E43.7010407@gmail.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140450h62916cf5t20446f351ee732b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9b9852bfc1c89531bc323f7246bf65e8@ruby-forum.com>
	<4B4F2E43.7010407@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5127addfd11425023336d346a5c828d5@ruby-forum.com>

Phillip Koebbe wrote:

> Hi John. Maybe this will help:
> 
> http://www.pragprog.com/titles/achbd/the-rspec-book
> 
> It's a good book. But when you get to the part about Webrat and
> Selenium, just know that there are other options if you need them.

Already reading that one thanks :-)  It is a good book and it's helping 
me get my head around it all.  It's just a case of understanding when to 
develop using Cucumber and when to user RSpec on it's own. I think this 
will come with experience.

John


-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From joahking at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 10:26:44 2010
From: joahking at gmail.com (Joaquin Rivera Padron)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:26:44 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <5127addfd11425023336d346a5c828d5@ruby-forum.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140450h62916cf5t20446f351ee732b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9b9852bfc1c89531bc323f7246bf65e8@ruby-forum.com>
	<4B4F2E43.7010407@gmail.com>
	<5127addfd11425023336d346a5c828d5@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <8277b7f41001140726i301f0d50ped9c55e25b549463@mail.gmail.com>

hi

2010/1/14 John Polling <lists at ruby-forum.com>

> Phillip Koebbe wrote:
>
> > Hi John. Maybe this will help:
> >
> > http://www.pragprog.com/titles/achbd/the-rspec-book
> >
> > It's a good book. But when you get to the part about Webrat and
> > Selenium, just know that there are other options if you need them.
>
> Already reading that one thanks :-)  It is a good book and it's helping
> me get my head around it all.  It's just a case of understanding when to
> develop using Cucumber and when to user RSpec on it's own. I think this
> will come with experience.
>

there's also this very good presentation by Ben Mabey about when to use
which (cucumber or rspec) with the analagy with bikes and bike-gears, only I
don't find the link :-(

hth (a bit),
joaquin


>
> John
>
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>



-- 
www.least-significant-bit.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100114/a72394dd/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 10:28:39 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:28:39 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <8277b7f41001140726i301f0d50ped9c55e25b549463@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140450h62916cf5t20446f351ee732b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9b9852bfc1c89531bc323f7246bf65e8@ruby-forum.com>
	<4B4F2E43.7010407@gmail.com>
	<5127addfd11425023336d346a5c828d5@ruby-forum.com>
	<8277b7f41001140726i301f0d50ped9c55e25b549463@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001140728u3c92d0b1u5962c0c5994d27a6@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Joaquin Rivera Padron
<joahking at gmail.com>wrote:

> hi
>
> 2010/1/14 John Polling <lists at ruby-forum.com>
>
> Phillip Koebbe wrote:
>>
>> > Hi John. Maybe this will help:
>> >
>> > http://www.pragprog.com/titles/achbd/the-rspec-book
>> >
>> > It's a good book. But when you get to the part about Webrat and
>> > Selenium, just know that there are other options if you need them.
>>
>> Already reading that one thanks :-)  It is a good book and it's helping
>> me get my head around it all.  It's just a case of understanding when to
>> develop using Cucumber and when to user RSpec on it's own. I think this
>> will come with experience.
>>
>
> there's also this very good presentation by Ben Mabey about when to use
> which (cucumber or rspec) with the analagy with bikes and bike-gears, only I
> don't find the link :-(
>

http://mwrc2009.confreaks.com/14-mar-2009-15-00-bdd-with-cucumber-ben-mabey.html

He leaves out a couple of steps here and there for the sake of time in the
presentation, but this gives a great overview.

Cheers,
David


>
> hth (a bit),
> joaquin
>
>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> --
>> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.least-significant-bit.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100114/03b55bef/attachment-0001.html>

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 10:31:21 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:31:21 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <5127addfd11425023336d346a5c828d5@ruby-forum.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>	<89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>	<57c63afe1001140450h62916cf5t20446f351ee732b5@mail.gmail.com>	<9b9852bfc1c89531bc323f7246bf65e8@ruby-forum.com>	<4B4F2E43.7010407@gmail.com>
	<5127addfd11425023336d346a5c828d5@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <4B4F38C9.6030600@gmail.com>


John Polling wrote:
> Already reading that one thanks :-) It is a good book and it's helping
> me get my head around it all.  It's just a case of understanding when to
> develop using Cucumber and when to user RSpec on it's own. I think this
> will come with experience.
>
> John
>    

Others can explain it better than me (and have), but in a nutshell:

- use Cucumber for full stack (as the user would see it) testing. Some 
call it User Acceptance Testing (UAT)
- use RSpec for unit/functional testing (controllers, models, views, 
helpers)

I think of it like this: RSpec is for the developer, Cucumber is for the 
user. That may be a gross oversimplification, but it works for me. :) 
But one thing to keep in mind is that you can (and maybe should) use 
them together. Through Cucumber, you establish the context of what the 
user will expect. Through RSpec, you establish expectations for the 
different pieces of the application. That's why it's called "Outside In 
Development": You start with the outside of the black box (what the user 
interacts with) and then step into the black box (the nuts and bolts 
that the user doesn't care about, but you, the developer, do).

Yes, it will come with experience. Just be patient, learn from your 
mistakes, and ask lots of questions! That you have testing knowledge 
already will help. Once the RSpec/Cucumber light goes on, there will be 
no stopping you!

Peace,
Phillip

From ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk  Thu Jan 14 10:32:48 2010
From: ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:32:48 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] default to just call the method?
In-Reply-To: <8936163d-331b-49c8-aac7-2fc089556f18@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
References: <8936163d-331b-49c8-aac7-2fc089556f18@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <779312C2-9522-4325-8D6D-E00DF214F1BD@patchspace.co.uk>


On Jan 12, 2010, at 10:49 pm, rogerdpack wrote:

> a.should include?("1:4") # if there's no matcher called include? then
> just call include?

Am I right thinking that this would mean writing a method_missing that creates a matcher for every unhandled message on the example object (whatever scope the #it block runs in)?  If so, that could produce surprising behaviour if methods were silently turned into matchers and ignored.

Maybe if you restricted it to ? methods it would not be so bad.  But then, that's the point of the be_* handler.  The only problem is that #include? is a verb not an adjective/noun.  Can't say I've come across many of them, so it might be better in these cases to just write a method #a_container_for? ?

Ashley

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran


From ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk  Thu Jan 14 10:48:49 2010
From: ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:48:49 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4AD49805-EA25-4299-856D-481CCF8BF34A@patchspace.co.uk>


On Jan 14, 2010, at 12:15 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:

> re: Integration testing, everybody has a different definition. Before Rails came along, the prevalent definition that I was aware of was "testing the behaviour of two non-trivial components together."
> 
> More recently, the definition that makes most sense to me comes from Growing Object Oriented Software [1]. I don't have the book in front of me, but from memory it is something like "testing your code with other code that you don't have any control over." Because we need a database for all levels of Rails testing, this suggests that all Rails testing is Integration Testing.

And yet, JB Rainsberger sticks absolutely uncompromisingly to the first definition[1].  I wonder if you could take it to yet another extreme and include tests for objects with private methods as "integration tests".

The thing I got most from GOOS is to protect all domain code with adapters.  If all Rails testing is integration testing, that means a lot of duplication and coupling that could be reduced... I have yet to do it for real though.  But GOOS is the book that convinced me it's worth trying.

Ashley

[1] http://www.infoq.com/presentations/integration-tests-scam

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran


From ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk  Thu Jan 14 10:56:15 2010
From: ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:56:15 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <9b9852bfc1c89531bc323f7246bf65e8@ruby-forum.com>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140450h62916cf5t20446f351ee732b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9b9852bfc1c89531bc323f7246bf65e8@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <16DB33D1-20DC-442D-BF3A-E54E7D009846@patchspace.co.uk>


On Jan 14, 2010, at 1:17 pm, John Polling wrote:

> I think this is the part that I'm confusing myself with as most Cucumber 
> information talks about using scenarios to drive the code out.  So 
> Cucumber comes first, whereas I used to do the Acceptance testing after 
> all the other TDD stuff.  Maybe that is me doing it wrong though.

The book David mentioned earlier - before the one he wrote himself :) - GOOS[1] has a diagram on p40 that shows how the unit test cycle fits inside the acceptance test cycle.  You can extend this to as many layers as you like.  I wrote a blog post which has a pretty picture of the idea[2].  Ignore the text, it's long and rambling and is about something else.  I thought it was a great insight, until I realised Kent Beck wrote about self-similarity something like 5+ years ago[3].

Ashley


[1] http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Object-Oriented-Software-Guided-Tests/dp/0321503627
[2] http://blog.patchspace.co.uk/2009/12/customers-input-and-russian-doll-of.html
[3] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/67833.Extreme_Programming_Explained_Embrace_Change

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran


From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 12:02:44 2010
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:02:44 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] default to just call the method?
In-Reply-To: <8936163d-331b-49c8-aac7-2fc089556f18@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
References: <8936163d-331b-49c8-aac7-2fc089556f18@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <deb2337a1001140902o7830358dhb24faaea2c06f680@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Any interest in the following idea?
>
>
> a.should include?("1:4") # if there's no matcher called include? then
> just call include?
>
> or something along those lines?

-1

You can already say

a.should include("1:4")

which is clearer IMHO.


-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 15:12:40 2010
From: onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com (Onno van der Straaten)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:12:40 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Selenium client gem
Message-ID: <be8e7a531001141212n69e1aad1u61c521c4636e7d86@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
I'm trying to install the selenium client with gem install selenium-client.
This returns the following message
ERROR:  could not find gem selenium-client locally or in a repository

BTW, I'm following the RSpec book chapter 22 Automating the Browser with
Webrat and Selenium.

Wat this gem removed from the repository?
Thanks,
Onno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100114/6e88a11c/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 15:37:49 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:37:49 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Selenium client gem
In-Reply-To: <be8e7a531001141212n69e1aad1u61c521c4636e7d86@mail.gmail.com>
References: <be8e7a531001141212n69e1aad1u61c521c4636e7d86@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001141237r537697cdv1229de5cad291b67@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Onno van der Straaten <
onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm trying to install the selenium client with gem install selenium-client.
> This returns the following message
> ERROR:  could not find gem selenium-client locally or in a repository
>
> BTW, I'm following the RSpec book chapter 22 Automating the Browser with
> Webrat and Selenium.
>
> Wat this gem removed from the repository?
>

Something is definitely out of whack. If you go to
http://gemcutter.org/gems/selenium-client, you'll see plenty of versions of
it - you can download the 1.2.17 version from that page.

However, here's what I get from a gem search:

$ gem q -rn selenium-client

*** REMOTE GEMS ***

Selenium-Client (0.1)

First, note the caps. Second, the version is way old.

I'm in IRC trying to resolve that, but in the mean time you can download it
from the page listed above.

Cheers,
David



> Thanks,
> Onno
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100114/8b58bdad/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jan 14 15:57:34 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:57:34 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Selenium client gem
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001141237r537697cdv1229de5cad291b67@mail.gmail.com>
References: <be8e7a531001141212n69e1aad1u61c521c4636e7d86@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001141237r537697cdv1229de5cad291b67@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001141257r22198f61i5de1dc3fb1ff1fb6@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:37 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Onno van der Straaten <
> onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I'm trying to install the selenium client with gem install
>> selenium-client.
>> This returns the following message
>> ERROR:  could not find gem selenium-client locally or in a repository
>>
>> BTW, I'm following the RSpec book chapter 22 Automating the Browser with
>> Webrat and Selenium.
>>
>> Wat this gem removed from the repository?
>>
>
> Something is definitely out of whack. If you go to
> http://gemcutter.org/gems/selenium-client, you'll see plenty of versions
> of it - you can download the 1.2.17 version from that page.
>
> However, here's what I get from a gem search:
>
> $ gem q -rn selenium-client
>
> *** REMOTE GEMS ***
>
> Selenium-Client (0.1)
>
> First, note the caps. Second, the version is way old.
>
> I'm in IRC trying to resolve that, but in the mean time you can download it
> from the page listed above.
>

Problem resolved in gemcutter source code - will be fixed on next deploy of
gemcutter. Not sure when that will be though :)


>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Onno
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100114/c0fd769c/attachment-0001.html>

From sean at clipperadams.com  Thu Jan 14 23:10:30 2010
From: sean at clipperadams.com (DeNigris Sean)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:10:30 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] autospec: non-standard filenames & redirecting output
Message-ID: <92828442-D3ED-4D2D-905B-2634D9B05A14@clipperadams.com>

Rspec gurus,

I have 2 questions about autospec.  I've played around quite a bit, but can't figure it out...

1.  I got autospec to work with my directory structure ("examples/*_example.rb"), but it only works if I have an empty spec/ directory.  Otherwise it reverts to running tests instead of examples...
Current ./.autotest:
Autotest.add_discovery do
  "rspec" if File.directory?('examples')
end

Autotest.add_hook(:initialize) {|at|
  ##at.add_exception %r{^\.git}  # ignore Version Control System
  at.clear_mappings         # take out the default (test/test*rb)

  at.add_mapping(%r%^examples/.*_example.rb$%) { |filename, _|
    filename
  }
  at.add_mapping(%r%^lib/(.*)\.rb$%) { |_, m|
    ["examples/#{m[1]}_example.rb"]
  }
  at.add_mapping(%r%^examples/(example_helper|shared/.*)\.rb$%) {
    at.files_matching %r%^examples/.*_example\.rb$%
  }
	nil
}

2.  Does anyone have a technique for redirecting the output (in my case to MacVim)?  I really only want it to happen if there are errors.  If everything went smoothly, probably a growl notification would be easier.

Thanks!

Sean DeNigris
sean at clipperadams.com

Mac OS X 10.6.2
rspec 1.2.9
ZenTest 4.2.1


From joahking at gmail.com  Fri Jan 15 03:23:17 2010
From: joahking at gmail.com (Joaquin Rivera Padron)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:23:17 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
In-Reply-To: <16DB33D1-20DC-442D-BF3A-E54E7D009846@patchspace.co.uk>
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001140450h62916cf5t20446f351ee732b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<9b9852bfc1c89531bc323f7246bf65e8@ruby-forum.com>
	<16DB33D1-20DC-442D-BF3A-E54E7D009846@patchspace.co.uk>
Message-ID: <8277b7f41001150023x3b793bc2h9920a92cb527bd5b@mail.gmail.com>

hey there
there's also http://bddcasts.com with railscasts like bdd screencasts

haven't check it much myself, but might deserve a look

hth,
joaquin

2010/1/14 Ashley Moran <ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk>

>
> On Jan 14, 2010, at 1:17 pm, John Polling wrote:
>
> > I think this is the part that I'm confusing myself with as most Cucumber
> > information talks about using scenarios to drive the code out.  So
> > Cucumber comes first, whereas I used to do the Acceptance testing after
> > all the other TDD stuff.  Maybe that is me doing it wrong though.
>
> The book David mentioned earlier - before the one he wrote himself :) -
> GOOS[1] has a diagram on p40 that shows how the unit test cycle fits inside
> the acceptance test cycle.  You can extend this to as many layers as you
> like.  I wrote a blog post which has a pretty picture of the idea[2].
>  Ignore the text, it's long and rambling and is about something else.  I
> thought it was a great insight, until I realised Kent Beck wrote about
> self-similarity something like 5+ years ago[3].
>
> Ashley
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Object-Oriented-Software-Guided-Tests/dp/0321503627
> [2]
> http://blog.patchspace.co.uk/2009/12/customers-input-and-russian-doll-of.html
> [3]
> http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/67833.Extreme_Programming_Explained_Embrace_Change
>
> --
> http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>



-- 
www.least-significant-bit.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100115/ccb54ef5/attachment.html>

From diwakar at angleritech.com  Fri Jan 15 03:42:31 2010
From: diwakar at angleritech.com (Diwakar, ANGLER - EIT)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:12:31 +0530
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing .Net Newbie
References: <02f00e6de887ca39f0ae635ae87fda1b@ruby-forum.com>	<57c63afe1001140415h519d8fedt5a2d7a4da79bde0a@mail.gmail.com>	<89770f45f02c8e364029d29b45c7813c@ruby-forum.com>	<57c63afe1001140450h62916cf5t20446f351ee732b5@mail.gmail.com>	<9b9852bfc1c89531bc323f7246bf65e8@ruby-forum.com>	<4B4F2E43.7010407@gmail.com><5127addfd11425023336d346a5c828d5@ruby-forum.com>
	<4B4F38C9.6030600@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16F1D498F4CD4545BB3C49972B5082714ECAA5@itech.angleritech.com>



Good explanation Phillip. It gives a clear idea...

Thanks

Regards,
Diwakar


Others can explain it better than me (and have), but in a nutshell:

- use Cucumber for full stack (as the user would see it) testing. Some
call it User Acceptance Testing (UAT)
- use RSpec for unit/functional testing (controllers, models, views,
helpers)

I think of it like this: RSpec is for the developer, Cucumber is for the
user. That may be a gross oversimplification, but it works for me. :)
But one thing to keep in mind is that you can (and maybe should) use
them together. Through Cucumber, you establish the context of what the
user will expect. Through RSpec, you establish expectations for the
different pieces of the application. That's why it's called "Outside In
Development": You start with the outside of the black box (what the user
interacts with) and then step into the black box (the nuts and bolts
that the user doesn't care about, but you, the developer, do).

Yes, it will come with experience. Just be patient, learn from your
mistakes, and ask lots of questions! That you have testing knowledge
already will help. Once the RSpec/Cucumber light goes on, there will be
no stopping you!

Peace,
Phillip
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users at rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100115/875a29c0/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jan 15 09:09:43 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:09:43 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] autospec: non-standard filenames & redirecting
	output
In-Reply-To: <92828442-D3ED-4D2D-905B-2634D9B05A14@clipperadams.com>
References: <92828442-D3ED-4D2D-905B-2634D9B05A14@clipperadams.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001150609i2a59e08ey3fc1e901694f6e8a@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:10 PM, DeNigris Sean <sean at clipperadams.com>wrote:

> Rspec gurus,
>
> I have 2 questions about autospec.  I've played around quite a bit, but
> can't figure it out...
>
> 1.  I got autospec to work with my directory structure
> ("examples/*_example.rb"), but it only works if I have an empty spec/
> directory.  Otherwise it reverts to running tests instead of examples...
> Current ./.autotest:
> Autotest.add_discovery do
>  "rspec" if File.directory?('examples')
> end
>

If you crack open ZenTest and look at these files:

bin/autotest
lib/autotest.rb

you'll see (eventually) that ./.autotest is loaded too late in the process.
It's actually loaded during the initialization of an Autotest object (or
subclass), so the class must already be determined.

Per the docs for autodiscover, all autotest/discover.rb files on your path
are loaded in order to determine what file to load. Try adding an autotest
directory in your project with a discover.rb file in it with:

Autotest.add_discovery { "rpspec" }


> Autotest.add_hook(:initialize) {|at|
>  ##at.add_exception %r{^\.git}  # ignore Version Control System
>  at.clear_mappings         # take out the default (test/test*rb)
>
>  at.add_mapping(%r%^examples/.*_example.rb$%) { |filename, _|
>    filename
>  }
>  at.add_mapping(%r%^lib/(.*)\.rb$%) { |_, m|
>    ["examples/#{m[1]}_example.rb"]
>  }
>  at.add_mapping(%r%^examples/(example_helper|shared/.*)\.rb$%) {
>    at.files_matching %r%^examples/.*_example\.rb$%
>  }
>        nil
> }
>
> 2.  Does anyone have a technique for redirecting the output (in my case to
> MacVim)?  I really only want it to happen if there are errors.  If
> everything went smoothly, probably a growl notification would be easier.
>

I'm not sure about redirecting to MacVim, but I do use growl notifications
for success and failure. If there's a failure, I go look at the shell
output. FWIW.

HTH,
David


>
> Thanks!
>
> Sean DeNigris
> sean at clipperadams.com
>
> Mac OS X 10.6.2
> rspec 1.2.9
> ZenTest 4.2.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100115/3af2469d/attachment.html>

From ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk  Fri Jan 15 09:19:16 2010
From: ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:19:16 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] default to just call the method?
In-Reply-To: <deb2337a1001140902o7830358dhb24faaea2c06f680@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8936163d-331b-49c8-aac7-2fc089556f18@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<deb2337a1001140902o7830358dhb24faaea2c06f680@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F979A7FF-0212-4F36-9269-80B8741F75E6@patchspace.co.uk>


On 14 Jan 2010, at 17:02, Rick DeNatale wrote:

> -1
> 
> You can already say
> 
> a.should include("1:4")
> 
> which is clearer IMHO.


I assume Roger was referring to the general case though (which I still don't like) - and just happened to pick an example with an existing matcher.

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran




From jko170 at gmail.com  Sat Jan 16 01:23:13 2010
From: jko170 at gmail.com (jko170)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:23:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] Specs fail in rake spec but not command R
Message-ID: <e7175ad7-41c7-4a48-b703-73747ca27035@g25g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

Surely I cannot be the only one experiencing this issue.

I have some code that is "time/date sensitive".

Why do some specs fail when I run rake spec, but they do not when I
use command R?

From vladimirrybas at gmail.com  Sat Jan 16 05:49:48 2010
From: vladimirrybas at gmail.com (Vladimir Rybas)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:49:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber generator
In-Reply-To: <be8e7a531001131116p176a80c5vdb21a5970697da95@mail.gmail.com>
References: <be8e7a531001122238g3c085334va096c8cca56320b2@mail.gmail.com> 
	<EB7C2793-ECA3-46E5-BD9B-F4336AA28968@gmail.com>
	<be8e7a531001131116p176a80c5vdb21a5970697da95@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8f15610d-a58b-41e4-b223-42a02a09c91f@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

Thanks!

Also you need to install webrat gem for cucumber generators to work.
If you use Ubuntu, make sure you got 'libxslt-ruby' and 'libxslt1-dev'
packages installed.

On Jan 14, 1:16?am, Onno van der Straaten
<onno.van.der.straa... at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Ben Lovell <benjamin.lov... at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Try
>
> > gem install cucumber-rails
>
> > In a recent release the generators were split from the main project.
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 13 Jan 2010, at 06:38, Onno van der Straaten <
> > onno.van.der.straa... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ?Hi,
> >> I'm new to RSpec and Cucumber and I'm following the RSpec book.
>
> >> I have cucumber gem installed but when I use script/generate cucumber it
> >> responds with Couldn't find 'cucumber' generator?
> >> Thanks,
> >> Onno
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >>http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jan 16 07:59:33 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:59:33 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Specs fail in rake spec but not command R
In-Reply-To: <e7175ad7-41c7-4a48-b703-73747ca27035@g25g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <e7175ad7-41c7-4a48-b703-73747ca27035@g25g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001160459h255b94fch2eb7abcf60a38496@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:23 AM, jko170 <jko170 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Surely I cannot be the only one experiencing this issue.
>
> I have some code that is "time/date sensitive".
>
> Why do some specs fail when I run rake spec, but they do not when I
> use command R?
>

Please read http://wiki.github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/get-in-touch and help us
help you by providing some context.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100116/2b624cbd/attachment.html>

From sean at clipperadams.com  Sat Jan 16 11:50:17 2010
From: sean at clipperadams.com (Sean DeNigris)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:50:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] autospec: non-standard filenames & redirecting
	output
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001150609i2a59e08ey3fc1e901694f6e8a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <92828442-D3ED-4D2D-905B-2634D9B05A14@clipperadams.com> 
	<57c63afe1001150609i2a59e08ey3fc1e901694f6e8a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04decc61-fe15-481e-b468-a1df2ea458bc@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>

> Per the docs for autodiscover, all autotest/discover.rb files on your path
> are loaded in order to determine what file to load. Try adding an autotest
> directory in your project with a discover.rb file in it with:
>
> Autotest.add_discovery { "rpspec" }
Beautiful, worked like a charm, thanks!

Still experimenting with getting the results to MacVim...  I'll post
anything I figure out.

Sean

From jko170 at gmail.com  Sat Jan 16 13:32:37 2010
From: jko170 at gmail.com (jko170)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] Specs fail in rake spec but not command R
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001160459h255b94fch2eb7abcf60a38496@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e7175ad7-41c7-4a48-b703-73747ca27035@g25g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe1001160459h255b94fch2eb7abcf60a38496@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c89f9c68-d701-422e-87fa-5589d58df8f9@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>

My code stubs Time.current by using mocha and Time.parse
('1984-01-28'). I fixed the problem by using Time.zone.parse
('1984-01-28').

Thank you for the reply.

On Jan 16, 4:59?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:23 AM, jko170 <jko... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Surely I cannot be the only one experiencing this issue.
>
> > I have some code that is "time/date sensitive".
>
> > Why do some specs fail when I run rake spec, but they do not when I
> > use command R?
>
> Please readhttp://wiki.github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/get-in-touchand help us
> help you by providing some context.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Sat Jan 16 22:43:31 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:43:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] specify line for autorun?
Message-ID: <7f6744c0-8ce6-4f38-94da-bcb9c7d7635a@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>

Am I correct in assuming this should work (bug)?

# spec.fast_require.rb contains the line require 'spec/autorun'
E:\dev\ruby\fast_ruby_require\spec>ruby spec.fast_require.rb -l25
Only one file can be specified when providing a line number: []

-rp


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jan 17 11:24:56 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:24:56 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] specify line for autorun?
In-Reply-To: <7f6744c0-8ce6-4f38-94da-bcb9c7d7635a@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
References: <7f6744c0-8ce6-4f38-94da-bcb9c7d7635a@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001170824v3c7fe76fvea0c00744644a39b@mail.gmail.com>

Yep - that's a bug - please file a ticket at http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com

Thx!

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 9:43 PM, rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Am I correct in assuming this should work (bug)?
>
> # spec.fast_require.rb contains the line require 'spec/autorun'
> E:\dev\ruby\fast_ruby_require\spec>ruby spec.fast_require.rb -l25
> Only one file can be specified when providing a line number: []
>
> -rp
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100117/8ca1af46/attachment.html>

From npdepolonia at gmail.com  Sun Jan 17 21:17:13 2010
From: npdepolonia at gmail.com (Nin)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:17:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] testing named_scope
Message-ID: <aa04bee9-5129-486f-a491-b5f00f93fe68@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>

Hi! I'm new to rspec and was wondering how named_scopes are usually
tested? Is it enough to test that it's defined? or do you need to test
the behavior as well? I've been reading around and this seems to be
the tester's choice, i just want to get people's opinion on this :D

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jan 17 21:56:22 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:56:22 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] testing named_scope
In-Reply-To: <aa04bee9-5129-486f-a491-b5f00f93fe68@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
References: <aa04bee9-5129-486f-a491-b5f00f93fe68@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001171856ue858614nc4b0fd0c3b8efd7f@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Nin <npdepolonia at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi! I'm new to rspec and was wondering how named_scopes are usually
> tested? Is it enough to test that it's defined? or do you need to test
> the behavior as well? I've been reading around and this seems to be
> the tester's choice, i just want to get people's opinion on this :D
>

_Specify_ the behaviour, don't _test_ the implementation. The fact that a
method is defined with a named_scope declaration is irrelevant to the
behaviour.

One reason for this is keeping things decoupled. Consider the fact that
named_scope just changed to scope today [1]. If your specs specify a call to
named_scope, they'll have to change, whereas if they they only specify the
name you define then you'll only need to update the implementation when you
upgrade.

[1]
http://github.com/rails/rails/commit/d60bb0a9e4be2ac0a9de9a69041a4ddc2e0cc914

That all make sense?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100117/0988f69a/attachment.html>

From mailinglists at patmaddox.com  Mon Jan 18 04:31:09 2010
From: mailinglists at patmaddox.com (Pat Maddox)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:31:09 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] default to just call the method?
In-Reply-To: <F979A7FF-0212-4F36-9269-80B8741F75E6@patchspace.co.uk>
References: <8936163d-331b-49c8-aac7-2fc089556f18@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<deb2337a1001140902o7830358dhb24faaea2c06f680@mail.gmail.com>
	<F979A7FF-0212-4F36-9269-80B8741F75E6@patchspace.co.uk>
Message-ID: <8D614E43-9043-4336-8BE7-FE0822193848@patmaddox.com>

On Jan 15, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Ashley Moran wrote:

> 
> On 14 Jan 2010, at 17:02, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> 
>> -1
>> 
>> You can already say
>> 
>> a.should include("1:4")
>> 
>> which is clearer IMHO.
> 
> 
> I assume Roger was referring to the general case though (which I still don't like) - and just happened to pick an example with an existing matcher.

If that's the case then I'd say it would be worth making a little macro to try it out.  Something like

define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?

It would need to define a simple matcher, allowing you to do

Phoenix.new.should rise_from_the_ashes?

which would naturally expand to Phoenix.new.rise_from_the_ashes?.should be_true

Roger, if you're just talking about include?, follow Rick's suggestion.  If you're talking about arbitrary predicates, then you can accomplish it in your own codebase with some simple metaprogramming, and see if it catches on with other folks.

Pat

From mailinglists at patmaddox.com  Mon Jan 18 05:01:08 2010
From: mailinglists at patmaddox.com (Pat Maddox)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:01:08 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] testing named_scope
In-Reply-To: <aa04bee9-5129-486f-a491-b5f00f93fe68@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
References: <aa04bee9-5129-486f-a491-b5f00f93fe68@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <6BE00C1F-8409-401E-A5C6-B7C9D578EF67@patmaddox.com>

class User < ActiveRecord::Base
  named_scope :admins, :conditions => {:admin => true}
end

describe User, "admins" do
  it "should include users with admin flag" do
    admin = User.create! :admin => true
    User.admin.should include(admin)
  end

  it "should not include users without admin flag" do
    admin = User.create! :admin => false
    User.admin.should_not include(admin)
  end
end


On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Nin wrote:

> Hi! I'm new to rspec and was wondering how named_scopes are usually
> tested? Is it enough to test that it's defined? or do you need to test
> the behavior as well? I've been reading around and this seems to be
> the tester's choice, i just want to get people's opinion on this :D
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan 18 05:17:32 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:17:32 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] testing named_scope
In-Reply-To: <6BE00C1F-8409-401E-A5C6-B7C9D578EF67@patmaddox.com>
References: <aa04bee9-5129-486f-a491-b5f00f93fe68@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
	<6BE00C1F-8409-401E-A5C6-B7C9D578EF67@patmaddox.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001180217y22cd503au769201f5ff9d7a6e@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Pat Maddox <mailinglists at patmaddox.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Nin wrote:
> > Hi! I'm new to rspec and was wondering how named_scopes are usually
> > tested? Is it enough to test that it's defined? or do you need to test
> > the behavior as well? I've been reading around and this seems to be
> > the tester's choice, i just want to get people's opinion on this :D
>
> class User < ActiveRecord::Base
> ?named_scope :admins, :conditions => {:admin => true}
> end
>
> describe User, "admins" do
> ?it "should include users with admin flag" do
> ? ?admin = User.create! :admin => true
> ? ?User.admin.should include(admin)
> ?end
>
> ?it "should not include users without admin flag" do
> ? ?admin = User.create! :admin => false
> ? ?User.admin.should_not include(admin)
> ?end
> end

Small style matter, but I've leaning towards more declarative sounding
example names:

describe User, ".admins" do
??it "includes users with admin flag" do
?? ?admin = User.create! :admin => true
?? ?User.admin.should include(admin)
??end

??it "excludes users without admin flag" do
?? ?non_admin = User.create! :admin => false
?? ?User.admin.should_not include(non_admin)
??end
end

class User < ActiveRecord::Base
??named_scope :admins, :conditions => {:admin => true}
end

We still have 'should' in the examples, but this produces more
'spec-like' output:

User.admins
??includes users with admin flag
??excludes users without admin flag

FWIW,
David

From ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk  Mon Jan 18 10:03:40 2010
From: ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:03:40 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] default to just call the method?
In-Reply-To: <8D614E43-9043-4336-8BE7-FE0822193848@patmaddox.com>
References: <8936163d-331b-49c8-aac7-2fc089556f18@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<deb2337a1001140902o7830358dhb24faaea2c06f680@mail.gmail.com>
	<F979A7FF-0212-4F36-9269-80B8741F75E6@patchspace.co.uk>
	<8D614E43-9043-4336-8BE7-FE0822193848@patmaddox.com>
Message-ID: <EEF7A04E-9467-47D7-A6FD-E10739561207@patchspace.co.uk>


On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:

> define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?

As an extension, how about:

define_simple_predicate_matcher :risen_from_the_ashes => :rise_from_the_ashes?

Also, in general, I think specs look better without ? symbols on methods, my preference though

Ashley

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran


From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Mon Jan 18 10:06:07 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:06:07 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Something like tags in cucumber
Message-ID: <4B5478DF.6090106@gmail.com>

In cucumber, I use tags in a very simple, yet helpful (to me) way: to 
number my scenarios. For example:

@1

Scenario: This is a scenario

@2

Scenario: This is another scenario

@3

Scenario: You get the idea

This allows me to focus in on a single scenario quite easily while I'm 
working on it. Once I have that scenario working correctly, I will run 
the entire feature to make sure nothing else is broken.

I'm finding that I'd like to do something quite similar in RSpec. For 
example, when I'm working on a model spec, I generally have contexts for 
what database fields should exist, what validations should exist, and 
what associations should exist. When I am later adding a couple of 
custom methods to do something, I'd like to be able to run the spec just 
for what I'm presently working on. Is this possible?

Peace,
Phillip

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan 18 10:12:49 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:12:49 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] default to just call the method?
In-Reply-To: <EEF7A04E-9467-47D7-A6FD-E10739561207@patchspace.co.uk>
References: <8936163d-331b-49c8-aac7-2fc089556f18@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<deb2337a1001140902o7830358dhb24faaea2c06f680@mail.gmail.com>
	<F979A7FF-0212-4F36-9269-80B8741F75E6@patchspace.co.uk>
	<8D614E43-9043-4336-8BE7-FE0822193848@patmaddox.com>
	<EEF7A04E-9467-47D7-A6FD-E10739561207@patchspace.co.uk>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001180712s41591463wdc61baf4f3b65241@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Ashley Moran
<ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
>> define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?
>
> As an extension, how about:
>
> define_simple_predicate_matcher :risen_from_the_ashes => :rises_from_the_ashes?

I'd rather not add a new DSL for the few cases in which we want to
essentially delegate a predicate. We can already do this with the
matcher DSL:

Spec::Matchers.define :risen_from_the_ashes do
  match {|actual| actual.risen_from_the_ashes?}
end

This is better aligned w/ other matchers, more clear as to what it
does, and isn't much more code.

FWIW,
David



>
> Also, in general, I think specs look better without ? symbols on methods, my preference though
>
> Ashley
>
> --
> http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan 18 10:21:43 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:21:43 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Something like tags in cucumber
In-Reply-To: <4B5478DF.6090106@gmail.com>
References: <4B5478DF.6090106@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001180721y2d182f91v135222cd33c7105f@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Phillip Koebbe <phillipkoebbe at gmail.com> wrote:
> In cucumber, I use tags in a very simple, yet helpful (to me) way: to number
> my scenarios. For example:
>
> @1
>
> Scenario: This is a scenario
>
> @2
>
> Scenario: This is another scenario
>
> @3
>
> Scenario: You get the idea
>
> This allows me to focus in on a single scenario quite easily while I'm
> working on it. Once I have that scenario working correctly, I will run the
> entire feature to make sure nothing else is broken.
>
> I'm finding that I'd like to do something quite similar in RSpec. For
> example, when I'm working on a model spec, I generally have contexts for
> what database fields should exist, what validations should exist, and what
> associations should exist.
>
> When I am later adding a couple of custom methods
> to do something, I'd like to be able to run the spec just for what I'm
> presently working on. Is this possible?

Not yet, but it will be in rspec-2. Internal syntax will be different,
but we'll try to make the CLI work like cuke's.

Cheers,
David

>
> Peace,
> Phillip

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Mon Jan 18 10:29:00 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:29:00 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Something like tags in cucumber
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001180721y2d182f91v135222cd33c7105f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B5478DF.6090106@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001180721y2d182f91v135222cd33c7105f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B547E3C.2050109@gmail.com>



David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Phillip Koebbe<phillipkoebbe at gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> In cucumber, I use tags in a very simple, yet helpful (to me) way: to number
>> my scenarios. For example:
>>
>> @1
>>
>> Scenario: This is a scenario
>>
>> @2
>>
>> Scenario: This is another scenario
>>
>> @3
>>
>> Scenario: You get the idea
>>
>> This allows me to focus in on a single scenario quite easily while I'm
>> working on it. Once I have that scenario working correctly, I will run the
>> entire feature to make sure nothing else is broken.
>>
>> I'm finding that I'd like to do something quite similar in RSpec. For
>> example, when I'm working on a model spec, I generally have contexts for
>> what database fields should exist, what validations should exist, and what
>> associations should exist.
>>
>> When I am later adding a couple of custom methods
>> to do something, I'd like to be able to run the spec just for what I'm
>> presently working on. Is this possible?
>>      
>
> Not yet, but it will be in rspec-2. Internal syntax will be different,
> but we'll try to make the CLI work like cuke's.
>
>    

Looking forward to it!

Thanks,
Phillip

> Cheers,
> David
>
>    
>> Peace,
>> Phillip
>>      
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>    

From ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk  Mon Jan 18 10:43:19 2010
From: ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:43:19 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] default to just call the method?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001180712s41591463wdc61baf4f3b65241@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8936163d-331b-49c8-aac7-2fc089556f18@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<deb2337a1001140902o7830358dhb24faaea2c06f680@mail.gmail.com>
	<F979A7FF-0212-4F36-9269-80B8741F75E6@patchspace.co.uk>
	<8D614E43-9043-4336-8BE7-FE0822193848@patmaddox.com>
	<EEF7A04E-9467-47D7-A6FD-E10739561207@patchspace.co.uk>
	<57c63afe1001180712s41591463wdc61baf4f3b65241@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <71261D2F-B24B-4E6D-A395-55278902B836@patchspace.co.uk>


On Jan 18, 2010, at 3:12 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:

> I'd rather not add a new DSL for the few cases in which we want to
> essentially delegate a predicate. We can already do this with the
> matcher DSL:

I think Pat was just suggesting Roger try this in his own code.  It's not something I especially want in RSpec, that was just a suggestion how Roger could play with the macro idea.

Ashley

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran


From cdemyanovich at gmail.com  Mon Jan 18 14:55:05 2010
From: cdemyanovich at gmail.com (Craig Demyanovich)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:55:05 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] testing named_scope
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001180217y22cd503au769201f5ff9d7a6e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <aa04bee9-5129-486f-a491-b5f00f93fe68@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
	<6BE00C1F-8409-401E-A5C6-B7C9D578EF67@patmaddox.com>
	<57c63afe1001180217y22cd503au769201f5ff9d7a6e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <61c885db1001181155u1c52e7b4id0d61b4be2fa4f78@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:17 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Pat Maddox <mailinglists at patmaddox.com>
> wrote:
>

...


> > class User < ActiveRecord::Base
> >  named_scope :admins, :conditions => {:admin => true}
> > end
> >
> > describe User, "admins" do
> >  it "should include users with admin flag" do
> >    admin = User.create! :admin => true
> >    User.admin.should include(admin)
> >  end
> >
> >  it "should not include users without admin flag" do
> >    admin = User.create! :admin => false
> >    User.admin.should_not include(admin)
> >  end
> > end
>
> Small style matter, but I've leaning towards more declarative sounding
> example names:
>
> describe User, ".admins" do
>   it "includes users with admin flag" do
>     admin = User.create! :admin => true
>     User.admin.should include(admin)
>   end
>
>   it "excludes users without admin flag" do
>     non_admin = User.create! :admin => false
>     User.admin.should_not include(non_admin)
>   end
> end
>
> class User < ActiveRecord::Base
>   named_scope :admins, :conditions => {:admin => true}
> end
>
> We still have 'should' in the examples, but this produces more
> 'spec-like' output:
>
> User.admins
>   includes users with admin flag
>   excludes users without admin flag


I agree, David. I've been omitting "should" from the beginning. For me, it
made the start of every example look too similar.

Regards,
Craig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100118/37b11a90/attachment-0001.html>

From mailinglists at patmaddox.com  Mon Jan 18 15:33:28 2010
From: mailinglists at patmaddox.com (Pat Maddox)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:33:28 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] default to just call the method?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001180712s41591463wdc61baf4f3b65241@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8936163d-331b-49c8-aac7-2fc089556f18@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<deb2337a1001140902o7830358dhb24faaea2c06f680@mail.gmail.com>
	<F979A7FF-0212-4F36-9269-80B8741F75E6@patchspace.co.uk>
	<8D614E43-9043-4336-8BE7-FE0822193848@patmaddox.com>
	<EEF7A04E-9467-47D7-A6FD-E10739561207@patchspace.co.uk>
	<57c63afe1001180712s41591463wdc61baf4f3b65241@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <88ECC3D6-8B7E-4CE6-AF93-AF0C4575CEE5@patmaddox.com>

On Jan 18, 2010, at 7:12 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Ashley Moran
> <ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
>> 
>>> define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?
>> 
>> As an extension, how about:
>> 
>> define_simple_predicate_matcher :risen_from_the_ashes => :rises_from_the_ashes?
> 
> I'd rather not add a new DSL for the few cases in which we want to
> essentially delegate a predicate. We can already do this with the
> matcher DSL:
> 
> Spec::Matchers.define :risen_from_the_ashes do
>  match {|actual| actual.risen_from_the_ashes?}
> end
> 
> This is better aligned w/ other matchers, more clear as to what it
> does, and isn't much more code.

This was a suggestion for OP to add to his own codebase, not RSpec, if he wanted to make the matcher definition even more concise.

Pat

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jan 18 15:46:08 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:46:08 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] default to just call the method?
In-Reply-To: <88ECC3D6-8B7E-4CE6-AF93-AF0C4575CEE5@patmaddox.com>
References: <8936163d-331b-49c8-aac7-2fc089556f18@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<deb2337a1001140902o7830358dhb24faaea2c06f680@mail.gmail.com>
	<F979A7FF-0212-4F36-9269-80B8741F75E6@patchspace.co.uk>
	<8D614E43-9043-4336-8BE7-FE0822193848@patmaddox.com>
	<EEF7A04E-9467-47D7-A6FD-E10739561207@patchspace.co.uk>
	<57c63afe1001180712s41591463wdc61baf4f3b65241@mail.gmail.com>
	<88ECC3D6-8B7E-4CE6-AF93-AF0C4575CEE5@patmaddox.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001181246m1fe2924ci17445a1fdbe76ca2@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Pat Maddox <mailinglists at patmaddox.com> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 7:12 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Ashley Moran
>> <ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
>>>
>>>> define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?
>>>
>>> As an extension, how about:
>>>
>>> define_simple_predicate_matcher :risen_from_the_ashes => :rises_from_the_ashes?
>>
>> I'd rather not add a new DSL for the few cases in which we want to
>> essentially delegate a predicate. We can already do this with the
>> matcher DSL:
>>
>> Spec::Matchers.define :risen_from_the_ashes do
>> ?match {|actual| actual.risen_from_the_ashes?}
>> end
>>
>> This is better aligned w/ other matchers, more clear as to what it
>> does, and isn't much more code.
>
> This was a suggestion for OP to add to his own codebase, not RSpec, if he wanted to make the matcher definition even more concise.

Understood. Thx.

> Pat

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Tue Jan 19 07:03:43 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Juanma Cervera)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:03:43 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Singleton classes
Message-ID: <3d96bba10469cd5b9ce607c2a9e538b5@ruby-forum.com>

Hello
I am trying to spec a singleton ruby class,
And I am having a little trouble because my specs are not more isolated,
as I am getting the same instace of the class for all my examples.

How should I do this.?
Which is the correct way of specing a singleton class?

Thanks
Juanma
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From tom at experthuman.com  Tue Jan 19 08:13:45 2010
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:13:45 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] RSpec for Rails 3
Message-ID: <CA78D343-631F-47CD-8732-C6A7E1EEEA46@experthuman.com>

Hi folks,

DHH has tentatively suggested a Rails 3 beta this month, so an innocent question: what's the plan, such as it is, for Rails 3 support in RSpec? Personally there's no way I'll be able to move any of my applications to Rails 3 until I can run the specs.

Absent any specific information I've been assuming the answer is a Debian-style "it'll be done when it's done", i.e. there's no plan to roll out Rails 3 compatibility in the immediate future. However, if there's anything more detailed than that, I'd love to hear it. Presumably nobody on the list is yet using RSpec with Rails 3?

Bonus question: are we likely to see Rails 3 compatibility in RSpec 1 as an interim measure, or is it only slated for an eventual appearance in RSpec 2?

Cheers,
-Tom

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jan 19 08:22:39 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:22:39 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] RSpec for Rails 3
In-Reply-To: <CA78D343-631F-47CD-8732-C6A7E1EEEA46@experthuman.com>
References: <CA78D343-631F-47CD-8732-C6A7E1EEEA46@experthuman.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001190522r20ea4e2dt656dbf09a2eec8d4@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Tom Stuart <tom at experthuman.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> DHH has tentatively suggested a Rails 3 beta this month, so an innocent question: what's the plan, such as it is, for Rails 3 support in RSpec? Personally there's no way I'll be able to move any of my applications to Rails 3 until I can run the specs.
>
> Absent any specific information I've been assuming the answer is a Debian-style "it'll be done when it's done", i.e. there's no plan to roll out Rails 3 compatibility in the immediate future. However, if there's anything more detailed than that, I'd love to hear it. Presumably nobody on the list is yet using RSpec with Rails 3?
>
> Bonus question: are we likely to see Rails 3 compatibility in RSpec 1 as an interim measure, or is it only slated for an eventual appearance in RSpec 2?

Start here: http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2010/01/12/rspec-2-and-rails-3/

I'll be making some more announcements about rspec-2 soon. Our goal is
to release rspec-rails-2.0.0.a1 when rails-3.0.0.pre comes out.

Cheers,
David

>
> Cheers,
> -Tom
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From tom at experthuman.com  Tue Jan 19 08:25:49 2010
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:25:49 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] RSpec for Rails 3
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001190522r20ea4e2dt656dbf09a2eec8d4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA78D343-631F-47CD-8732-C6A7E1EEEA46@experthuman.com>
	<57c63afe1001190522r20ea4e2dt656dbf09a2eec8d4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4122EB58-5F25-445C-A30C-A2BF7DDF7DD9@experthuman.com>

On 19 Jan 2010, at 13:22, David Chelimsky wrote:
> Start here: http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2010/01/12/rspec-2-and-rails-3/
> I'll be making some more announcements about rspec-2 soon. Our goal is
> to release rspec-rails-2.0.0.a1 when rails-3.0.0.pre comes out.

Oh, that's great, thanks David. Sorry I missed the blog post -- I only read the list.

Cheers,
-Tom

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jan 19 08:35:59 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:35:59 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Singleton classes
In-Reply-To: <3d96bba10469cd5b9ce607c2a9e538b5@ruby-forum.com>
References: <3d96bba10469cd5b9ce607c2a9e538b5@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001190535s5d115550w1a4ae54348f064bb@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Juanma Cervera <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> Hello
> I am trying to spec a singleton ruby class,
> And I am having a little trouble because my specs are not more isolated,
> as I am getting the same instace of the class for all my examples.
>
> How should I do this.?
> Which is the correct way of specing a singleton class?

I'm assuming you mean singleton as in the Singleton Pattern, as
opposed to the singleton class of an object, yes?

If so, you'll have to dup it or subclass it in your spec if you want
to isolation.

Why do you need a Singleton, though?

David

>
> Thanks
> Juanma
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jan 19 08:37:25 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:37:25 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] RSpec for Rails 3
In-Reply-To: <4122EB58-5F25-445C-A30C-A2BF7DDF7DD9@experthuman.com>
References: <CA78D343-631F-47CD-8732-C6A7E1EEEA46@experthuman.com>
	<57c63afe1001190522r20ea4e2dt656dbf09a2eec8d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<4122EB58-5F25-445C-A30C-A2BF7DDF7DD9@experthuman.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001190537n743e106eo8ff1db1f3bc47010@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Tom Stuart <tom at experthuman.com> wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2010, at 13:22, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> Start here: http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2010/01/12/rspec-2-and-rails-3/
>> I'll be making some more announcements about rspec-2 soon. Our goal is
>> to release rspec-rails-2.0.0.a1 when rails-3.0.0.pre comes out.
>
> Oh, that's great, thanks David. Sorry I missed the blog post -- I only read the list.

No apologies necessary. I'll follow up in the next day or so w/ more
information.

Cheers,
David

>
> Cheers,
> -Tom
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Tue Jan 19 09:33:54 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Juanma Cervera)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:33:54 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Singleton classes
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001190535s5d115550w1a4ae54348f064bb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3d96bba10469cd5b9ce607c2a9e538b5@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001190535s5d115550w1a4ae54348f064bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f8cf069005ad79f1b7b49695ec3f77bd@ruby-forum.com>

Yes, I mean the Singleton Pattern.
I am not an expert with OO, but I supposed this pattern was what best 
fits my needs of a class that represent a unique resource in the system, 
in this case it's something like a queue of jobs that I have to 
administrate in real time.
Am I right?
Maybe not, because I am writing a web app and not using globals or 
session state to store this class, and I am accessing the instance of 
the class in each http request.
In that case the dup option sounds good for me.
But what do you think?
Thanks David

Juanma


David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Juanma Cervera <lists at ruby-forum.com> 
> wrote:
>> Hello
>> I am trying to spec a singleton ruby class,
>> And I am having a little trouble because my specs are not more isolated,
>> as I am getting the same instace of the class for all my examples.
>>
>> How should I do this.?
>> Which is the correct way of specing a singleton class?
> 
> I'm assuming you mean singleton as in the Singleton Pattern, as
> opposed to the singleton class of an object, yes?
> 
> If so, you'll have to dup it or subclass it in your spec if you want
> to isolation.
> 
> Why do you need a Singleton, though?
> 
> David

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk  Tue Jan 19 10:13:40 2010
From: ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:13:40 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Singleton classes
In-Reply-To: <f8cf069005ad79f1b7b49695ec3f77bd@ruby-forum.com>
References: <3d96bba10469cd5b9ce607c2a9e538b5@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001190535s5d115550w1a4ae54348f064bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<f8cf069005ad79f1b7b49695ec3f77bd@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <5C3284AB-2AAB-45F4-90A4-1B8002AFA8E3@patchspace.co.uk>


On Jan 19, 2010, at 2:33 pm, Juanma Cervera wrote:

> Yes, I mean the Singleton Pattern.
> I am not an expert with OO, but I supposed this pattern was what best 
> fits my needs of a class that represent a unique resource in the system, 
> in this case it's something like a queue of jobs that I have to 
> administrate in real time.
> Am I right?

What would be the implications of *not* using a singleton?  Bear in mind that if you're writing a webapp, you will at some point have two of these objects simultaneously in different processes.

What is the responsibility of the object itself, and where does the responsibility for enforcing that the resource is only used by one client at a time live?

Ashley

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran


From lists at ruby-forum.com  Wed Jan 20 06:03:04 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Amit Kulkarni)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:03:04 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Display Rspec output in an html file
In-Reply-To: <519fdc75a55cf41ee085070ec152b883@ruby-forum.com>
References: <aae941101032488d4dcc15e860022039@ruby-forum.com>
	<E1AAB13F-91CA-4EDB-8FC6-E2BC206E7DEB@mattwynne.net>
	<6bb97fe564ebbb30e16ad7e753473ca0@ruby-forum.com>
	<6E9E130A-B144-4AAC-9EEF-CA69E189D553@mattwynne.net>
	<a101bc570c7462fba2e8e99f8662adf1@ruby-forum.com>
	<744c997fb5fe43cbb5987ef33930c18b@ruby-forum.com>
	<ce19275bd5f99cef8a7573af0d487fd3@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe0911270258r73d1b432wdbcc999a93a8bdd8@mail.gmail.com>
	<519fdc75a55cf41ee085070ec152b883@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <ba0d355ca7d404bf09ad384f14c12241@ruby-forum.com>

Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> Ok.Thanks a lot David

Hello,
Is there any way to display rspec result in .csv or .xls format.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jan 20 07:23:44 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:23:44 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Display Rspec output in an html file
In-Reply-To: <ba0d355ca7d404bf09ad384f14c12241@ruby-forum.com>
References: <aae941101032488d4dcc15e860022039@ruby-forum.com>
	<E1AAB13F-91CA-4EDB-8FC6-E2BC206E7DEB@mattwynne.net>
	<6bb97fe564ebbb30e16ad7e753473ca0@ruby-forum.com>
	<6E9E130A-B144-4AAC-9EEF-CA69E189D553@mattwynne.net>
	<a101bc570c7462fba2e8e99f8662adf1@ruby-forum.com>
	<744c997fb5fe43cbb5987ef33930c18b@ruby-forum.com>
	<ce19275bd5f99cef8a7573af0d487fd3@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe0911270258r73d1b432wdbcc999a93a8bdd8@mail.gmail.com>
	<519fdc75a55cf41ee085070ec152b883@ruby-forum.com>
	<ba0d355ca7d404bf09ad384f14c12241@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001200423p1bf1c9e7nbf0e1cb0fd9205ac@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Amit Kulkarni <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> Amit Kulkarni wrote:
>> Ok.Thanks a lot David
>
> Hello,
> Is there any way to display rspec result in .csv or .xls format.

You can write a custom formatter and invoke it with:

  spec spec --require my_formatter.rb --formatter MyFormatter

See http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec/1.3.0/classes/Spec/Runner/Formatter/BaseFormatter.html
for all the methods you'll want to implement in the formatter.

HTH,
David

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Wed Jan 20 08:39:13 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Amit Kulkarni)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:39:13 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Display Rspec output in an html file
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001200423p1bf1c9e7nbf0e1cb0fd9205ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <aae941101032488d4dcc15e860022039@ruby-forum.com>
	<E1AAB13F-91CA-4EDB-8FC6-E2BC206E7DEB@mattwynne.net>
	<6bb97fe564ebbb30e16ad7e753473ca0@ruby-forum.com>
	<6E9E130A-B144-4AAC-9EEF-CA69E189D553@mattwynne.net>
	<a101bc570c7462fba2e8e99f8662adf1@ruby-forum.com>
	<744c997fb5fe43cbb5987ef33930c18b@ruby-forum.com>
	<ce19275bd5f99cef8a7573af0d487fd3@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe0911270258r73d1b432wdbcc999a93a8bdd8@mail.gmail.com>
	<519fdc75a55cf41ee085070ec152b883@ruby-forum.com>
	<ba0d355ca7d404bf09ad384f14c12241@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001200423p1bf1c9e7nbf0e1cb0fd9205ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <121adbf4a9037f3a64748cc11bb2e5c2@ruby-forum.com>

Thanks a lot David.
I generated a the output to xls with the command
"spec user_spec.rb  --format progress:a.xls"
Under the xls it is displaying only those examples which are failing 
like for e.g.

1)
'User User should not be created if email format is different' FAILED
expected: "Please check the email format",
     got: ["is too short (minimum is 6 characters)", "should look like 
an email address."] (using ==)
./user_spec.rb:39:

In html it looks like:

should not be created if email format is different
expected: "Please check the email format",
     got: ["is too short (minimum is 6 characters)", "should look like 
an email address."] (using ==)./user_spec.rb:39:37      @user.email = 
"abcd"
38      @user.should_not be_valid
39      @user.errors.on(:email).should == "Please check the email 
format"
40    end

Now how can i change the code so that output in xls will look similar to 
html atleast passing examples should be visible

I also wanted to know how and where i should write my custom formatter?
Also it would be good if i can see some links which contains examples of 
the same
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From coreyhaines at gmail.com  Wed Jan 20 10:27:24 2010
From: coreyhaines at gmail.com (Corey Haines)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:27:24 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] default to just call the method?
Message-ID: <6bdacb71001200727r66d083bfm95b70a334abf264b@mail.gmail.com>

Is something like this what you were thinking of?

http://gist.github.com/281907


>>> On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
>>>
>>>> define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?
>>>
>>> As an extension, how about:
>>>
>>> define_simple_predicate_matcher :risen_from_the_ashes => :rises_from_the_ashes?
>>


-- 
http://www.coreyhaines.com
The Internet's Premiere source of information about Corey Haines

From mailinglists at patmaddox.com  Wed Jan 20 14:20:44 2010
From: mailinglists at patmaddox.com (Pat Maddox)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:20:44 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] default to just call the method?
In-Reply-To: <6bdacb71001200727r66d083bfm95b70a334abf264b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6bdacb71001200727r66d083bfm95b70a334abf264b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E4149288-9E0A-4915-B113-42FE1D2FE3A5@patmaddox.com>

exactamundo

On Jan 20, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Corey Haines wrote:

> Is something like this what you were thinking of?
> 
> http://gist.github.com/281907
> 
> 
>>>> On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?
>>>> 
>>>> As an extension, how about:
>>>> 
>>>> define_simple_predicate_matcher :risen_from_the_ashes => :rises_from_the_ashes?
>>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.coreyhaines.com
> The Internet's Premiere source of information about Corey Haines
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From dansteinicke at gmail.com  Wed Jan 20 13:00:51 2010
From: dansteinicke at gmail.com (Dan Steinicke)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:00:51 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] [rails] undefined method `handling_predicate!'
Message-ID: <d2d5303d1001201000o4944e361t974fbe8b876c3f0e@mail.gmail.com>

I'm trying to use authlogic and factory_girl with rspec  and I am
getting an error I don't understand.  Basically I have this failing
spec:

it "should succeed in creating a user from a factory" do
     testuser = Factory.create(:user)
     debugger
     testuser.should be_valid
end

When I stop in the debugger I see this:

(rdb:1) testuser.valid?
true
(rdb:1) testuser.should be_valid
NoMethodError Exception: undefined method `handling_predicate!' for
#<Spec::Matchers::Be:0x25a9cac @args=[:be_valid]>

My (limited) understanding of rSpec is that if the "testuser.valid?"
works then "testuser.should be_valid" should work as well.  I'm
confused because its not working.

Can someone help me understand what is going on here?

I am using the following gem versions:
rspec (1.3.0)
rspec-rails (1.3.2)
authlogic (2.1.3)
factory_girl (1.2.3)
rails (2.3.5)

I have uninstalled/ reinstalled rspec, rspec-rails and rerun
script/generate rspec letting it overwrite everything.

Gist with full terminal output from running the spec and files:
http://gist.github.com/282045
spec/models/user_spec.rb
spec/spec_helper.rb
spec/factories/users.rb

thanks
Dan Steinicke

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jan 20 22:07:35 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:07:35 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] [rails] undefined method `handling_predicate!'
In-Reply-To: <d2d5303d1001201000o4944e361t974fbe8b876c3f0e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d2d5303d1001201000o4944e361t974fbe8b876c3f0e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001201907y37b802e0h71b09cf572537122@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Dan Steinicke <dansteinicke at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to use authlogic and factory_girl with rspec ?and I am
> getting an error I don't understand. ?Basically I have this failing
> spec:
>
> it "should succeed in creating a user from a factory" do
> ? ? testuser = Factory.create(:user)
> ? ? debugger
> ? ? testuser.should be_valid
> end
>
> When I stop in the debugger I see this:
>
> (rdb:1) testuser.valid?
> true
> (rdb:1) testuser.should be_valid
> NoMethodError Exception: undefined method `handling_predicate!' for
> #<Spec::Matchers::Be:0x25a9cac @args=[:be_valid]>
>
> My (limited) understanding of rSpec is that if the "testuser.valid?"
> works then "testuser.should be_valid" should work as well. ?I'm
> confused because its not working.
>
> Can someone help me understand what is going on here?
>
> I am using the following gem versions:
> rspec (1.3.0)
> rspec-rails (1.3.2)
> authlogic (2.1.3)
> factory_girl (1.2.3)
> rails (2.3.5)
>
> I have uninstalled/ reinstalled rspec, rspec-rails and rerun
> script/generate rspec letting it overwrite everything.
>
> Gist with full terminal output from running the spec and files:
> http://gist.github.com/282045
> spec/models/user_spec.rb
> spec/spec_helper.rb
> spec/factories/users.rb
>
> thanks
> Dan Steinicke

Hey Dan,

If you're seeing that error it means you have an older version of
rspec-rails than 1.3.2 that is being loaded. Try running the spec with
--backtrace so you can see a full backtrace. Do you see any other
versions being loaded? Maybe from vendor/plugins?

From brad.forsyth at inspire2go.com  Wed Jan 20 22:38:28 2010
From: brad.forsyth at inspire2go.com (Brad)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] Need Help with Specs failing when using
	ActionMailer
In-Reply-To: <d2407c99-f5ed-44f5-8e68-a71d73f443d2@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
References: <9cd70a2a-320d-4c48-867a-7ca459858daa@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0912100155t15cb1531p438b0ecbbcfbf81a@mail.gmail.com> 
	<d2407c99-f5ed-44f5-8e68-a71d73f443d2@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <bba95912-17b7-4485-9172-c8db7a1eb757@r37g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>

Finally solved the problem.  Even though the application is Rails
2.3.5 it was started on a much earlier version and the view files were
using the old rhtml extensions.  The newer auto format detection uses
html.erb, or in the case of the mailer, likes
file_name.text.html.erb.  All I had to do was rename the view files
and the specifications passed.  Not sure why the application ran fine
with the old file name extensions whereas controller spec's failed,
but at least it is now working.

On Dec 10 2009, 9:20?am, Brad <brad.fors... at inspire2go.com> wrote:
> Dave
> Thanks for looking at this. ?I really appreciate it.
>
> Here is the method being called:
>
> 144 ?# Sign up a new user with a default role of USER and with a state
> of pending.
> 145 ?# The user must activate their account via e-mail before they can
> login
> 146 ?def self.create_from_signup(params = {} )
> 147 ? ?user = new(params)
> 148 ? ?if user.valid?
> 149 ? ? ?user.register!
> 150 ? ? ?UserNotifier.deliver_signup_notification(user)
> 151 ? ?end
> 152 ? ?return user
> 153 ?end
>
> Line 150 is calling UserNotifier
>
> class UserNotifier <ActionMailer::Base
> ? def signup_notification(user)
> ? ? setup_email(user)
> ? ? @subject ? ?+= "#{user.login}, Please activate your new account"
> ? ? @body[:url] ?= "http://#{SITE_HOST}/activate/#
> {user.activation_code}"
> ? end
>
> ? def password_reset_notification(user, newpassword)
> ? ? setup_email(user)
> ? ? @subject ? ?+= "#{user.login}, Account changes"
> ? ? @body[:password] ?= newpassword
> ? end
>
> ? protected
> ? def setup_email(user)
> ? ? @recipients ?= "#{user.email}"
> ? ? @from ? ? ? ?= ?SITE
> ? ? @subject ? ? = "[CONFIRMATION] "
> ? ? @sent_on ? ? = Time.now
> ? ? @body[:user] = user
> ? end
> end
>
> Everything works well in the standalone model spec. ?It's when I
> combine it with controller spec's that the problem occurs.
>
> Brad
>
> On Dec 10, 4:55?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Brad <brad.fors... at inspire2go.com> wrote:
> > > No one was able to help me with the last post so I thought I would try
> > > again with more details. ?I am having problems with specs that invoke
> > > the mailer. ?My User model has a method that invokes a mailer as part
> > > of the create_from_signup method.
>
> > > First an example of the test that passes in my spec/models/user_spec
> > > when run in isolation (i.e. spec spec/models/user_spec.rb).
>
> > > ? ?before do
> > > ? ? ?UserNotifier.deliveries = []
> > > ? ?end
>
> > > ? ?it "should signup a valid user and send an activation e-mail" do
> > > ? ? ?u = User.create_from_signup(params)
> > > ? ? ?u.state.should == 'pending'
> > > ? ? ?UserNotifier.should have(1).deliveries
> > > ? ? ?mail = UserNotifier.deliveries.first
> > > ? ? ?mail.to.should eql( [u.email] )
> > > ? ? ?mail.subject.should eql( "#{u.login}, Please activate your new
> > > account" )
> > > ? ?end
>
> > > The spec passes with no problems [ all green :) ]
>
> > > When I run this same spec within my entire suite (spec spec), it fails
> > > with the following backtrace
>
> > > ArgumentError in 'User Signup - should signup a valid user and send an
> > > activation e-mail"
> > > wrong number of arguments (0 for 1)
> > > ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionmailer-2.3.5/lib/action_mailer/
> > > base.rb:551:in 'content_type'
> > > ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionmailer-2.3.5/lib/action_mailer/
> > > base.rb:551:in 'render_message'
> > > ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionmailer-2.3.5/lib/action_mailer/
> > > base.rb:493:in 'create!'
> > > ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionmailer-2.3.5/lib/action_mailer/
> > > base.rb:452:in 'initialize'
> > > ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionmailer-2.3.5/lib/action_mailer/
> > > base.rb:395:in 'new'
> > > ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionmailer-2.3.5/lib/action_mailer/
> > > base.rb:395:in 'method_missing'
> > > rails/app/models/user.rb:150:in 'create_from_signup'
>
> > What's on line 150 in user.rb? Please post the entire method
> > surrounding that line.
>
> > > I get this same error in my user controller tests, whether I run it
> > > standalone or within the suite.
>
> > > Does anyone have any idea what could be causing this?
>
> > > Thanks in advance
>
> > > Brad
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From ben at benmabey.com  Thu Jan 21 11:11:37 2010
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:11:37 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] running specs on JRuby w/nailgun
Message-ID: <4B587CB9.103@benmabey.com>

Hi all,
I know this is probably more of a JRuby question but I'm guessing that 
people on this list may have gone down this path before.  At work we are 
starting a new project using JRuby.  The startup speed for testing an 
app is very painful.  Nailgun helps a lot with that.  It only helps with 
the slow startup time of JRuby though and does not address the use case 
of having gems preloaded like Spork does for MRI.  We would like to have 
all of our gems (esp Rails) preloaded in Nailgun so we can run our tests 
against it with minimal startup time (just the loading of the app and 
specs).

Has anyone solved this problem to get lightning fast specs on JRuby just 
like we can with MRI and Spork?

Thanks,

Ben

From onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com  Thu Jan 21 16:31:13 2010
From: onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com (Onno van der Straaten)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:31:13 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Within method (and other Webrat methods)
Message-ID: <be8e7a531001211331t5725011aid630ca3974a2c819@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
Another newbie question. I'm sort of confused as I often find instructions
on the internet that don't work.

Now I was looking for ways to click a link that can only be selected in a
complex way using CSS selectors.

I found an example

within "#entry_2" do |scope|
  scope.click_link "Delete"
end

The article suggests this done using Webrat but when I try to use it
the message is that 'within' does not exist. I am using Webrat right?
I have this in env.rb
require 'webrat'
require 'webrat/core/matchers'

Best Regards,
Onno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100121/49c15b7a/attachment-0001.html>

From dansteinicke at gmail.com  Thu Jan 21 17:38:01 2010
From: dansteinicke at gmail.com (DanS)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:38:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] [rails] undefined method `handling_predicate!'
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001201907y37b802e0h71b09cf572537122@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d2d5303d1001201000o4944e361t974fbe8b876c3f0e@mail.gmail.com> 
	<57c63afe1001201907y37b802e0h71b09cf572537122@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d12ef6aa-4b2b-42a8-8b1d-4f656773992c@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>



On Jan 20, 7:07?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Dan Steinicke <dansteini... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm trying to use authlogic and factory_girl with rspec ?and I am
> > getting an error I don't understand. ?Basically I have this failing
> > spec:
>
> > it "should succeed in creating a user from a factory" do
> > ? ? testuser = Factory.create(:user)
> > ? ? debugger
> > ? ? testuser.should be_valid
> > end
>
> > When I stop in the debugger I see this:
>
> > (rdb:1) testuser.valid?
> > true
> > (rdb:1) testuser.should be_valid
> > NoMethodError Exception: undefined method `handling_predicate!' for
> > #<Spec::Matchers::Be:0x25a9cac @args=[:be_valid]>
>
> > My (limited) understanding of rSpec is that if the "testuser.valid?"
> > works then "testuser.should be_valid" should work as well. ?I'm
> > confused because its not working.
>
> > Can someone help me understand what is going on here?
>
> > I am using the following gem versions:
> > rspec (1.3.0)
> > rspec-rails (1.3.2)
> > authlogic (2.1.3)
> > factory_girl (1.2.3)
> > rails (2.3.5)
>
> > I have uninstalled/ reinstalled rspec, rspec-rails and rerun
> > script/generate rspec letting it overwrite everything.
>
> > Gist with full terminal output from running the spec and files:
> >http://gist.github.com/282045
> > spec/models/user_spec.rb
> > spec/spec_helper.rb
> > spec/factories/users.rb
>
> > thanks
> > Dan Steinicke
>
> Hey Dan,
>
> If you're seeing that error it means you have an older version of
> rspec-rails than 1.3.2 that is being loaded. Try running the spec with
> --backtrace so you can see a full backtrace. Do you see any other
> versions being loaded? Maybe from vendor/plugins?
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

David,

That indeed was the problem.  The gist from the original post shows
the test run with --backtrace and it does show rspec-rails in vendor/
plugins (I didn't see a version number tho).   I did the following:
rm -fr vendor/plugin/rspec-rails
rm -fr vendor/plugin/rsecp
sudo gem install rspec rspec-rails

After which the spec no longer produces a NoMethodError and in fact
passes.

Thanks for taking the time to help me understand this, I was really
stuck.

Dan

From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Thu Jan 21 17:54:43 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:54:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] running specs on JRuby w/nailgun
In-Reply-To: <4B587CB9.103@benmabey.com>
References: <4B587CB9.103@benmabey.com>
Message-ID: <d7cf5067-1145-496f-93d7-c0934bdfeda2@b9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

> Has anyone solved this problem to get lightning fast specs on JRuby just
> like we can with MRI and Spork?

I'm working on a single threaded spork

http://github.com/rdp/spork

it might work with jruby

it sure does speed things up mightily here in windows land

-r

From yalong1976 at gmail.com  Thu Jan 21 22:40:44 2010
From: yalong1976 at gmail.com (aaron zhang)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:40:44 +0800
Subject: [rspec-users] error: stack level too deep
Message-ID: <83740ebc1001211940t50bcf542pbe9ce84d320d1198@mail.gmail.com>

hi, guys

    i write follow code :

        it "The default should be based on readers to recommend a book
tastes" do
            @pick_book = mock_model(PickBook)
            @pick_books = [@pick_book]
            @recommend_count = 1

PickBook.should_receive(:recommend_books).with(@recommend_count, at user).and_return(@pick_books)

            post 'create','format'=>'json'
            assigns['pick_books'].should    equal(@pick_books)
            response.should be_success
            response.should have_text(@pick_books.to_json)
        end

    The following error occurred:
        stack level too deep


Best regards,
-- 
Aaron ?????
www.nonobo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100122/c12eb8fd/attachment.html>

From mailinglists at patmaddox.com  Thu Jan 21 23:52:28 2010
From: mailinglists at patmaddox.com (Pat Maddox)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:52:28 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] error: stack level too deep
In-Reply-To: <83740ebc1001211940t50bcf542pbe9ce84d320d1198@mail.gmail.com>
References: <83740ebc1001211940t50bcf542pbe9ce84d320d1198@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1D6727BB-D996-45B1-8585-5964768DCD3C@patmaddox.com>

Please provide more context.  There should be a stack trace that tells you at which line the error occurs.

This problem typically occurs when you have a method that calls itself and has no return mechanism.  Sometimes that can be a sloppily implemented method_missing.

I can't see anything obviously wrong with what you've posted, but there's a lot missing:

* the rest of the spec code
* full error message
* relevant production code

Pat




On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:40 PM, aaron zhang wrote:

> hi, guys
> 
>     i write follow code :
> 
>         it "The default should be based on readers to recommend a book tastes" do
>             @pick_book = mock_model(PickBook)            
>             @pick_books = [@pick_book]
>             @recommend_count = 1
>             PickBook.should_receive(:recommend_books).with(@recommend_count, at user).and_return(@pick_books)
> 
>             post 'create','format'=>'json'
>             assigns['pick_books'].should    equal(@pick_books)
>             response.should be_success
>             response.should have_text(@pick_books.to_json)
>         end
> 
>     The following error occurred:
>         stack level too deep
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Aaron ?????
> www.nonobo.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100121/1721d8ab/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jan 22 00:11:14 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:11:14 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Within method (and other Webrat methods)
In-Reply-To: <be8e7a531001211331t5725011aid630ca3974a2c819@mail.gmail.com>
References: <be8e7a531001211331t5725011aid630ca3974a2c819@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001212111o517a0a5diacbdb71c17a64b13@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Onno van der Straaten
<onno.van.der.straaten at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Another newbie question. I'm sort of confused as I often find instructions
> on the internet that don't work.
>
> Now I was looking for ways to click a link that can only be selected in a
> complex way using CSS selectors.
>
> I found an example
>
> within "#entry_2" do |scope|
>   scope.click_link "Delete"
> end
>
> The article suggests this done using Webrat but when I try to use it the
> message is that 'within' does not exist. I am using Webrat right? I have
> this in env.rb

Are you having this trouble with rspec or cucumber? If cucumber,
please post to http://groups.google.com/group/cukes. If rspec, env.rb
is not loaded by rspec, so that would need to go in a file that either
holds your spec or is required by a spec file.

HTH,
David

>
> require 'webrat'
> require 'webrat/core/matchers'
>
> Best Regards,
> Onno

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Fri Jan 22 02:34:14 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Amit Kulkarni)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:34:14 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing Email thriugh Rspec
Message-ID: <59890594d0de59b0496d0010538b7cef@ruby-forum.com>

Hi i am testing email through rspec but some problem occured.
This is the whole scenario:
What i want to do is when my user is created it should send mail to for
activation.
This is the code under user_spec.rb
require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + ?/../spec_helper?)

def valid_user_attributes
{
:email => ?testing at joshsoftware.com?,
:login => ?test?,
:password => ?test123?,
:password_confirmation => ?test123?,
:role_id => 1
}
end

describe User do
before(:each) do
@user = User.create
ActionMailer::Base.delivery_method = :test
ActionMailer::Base.perform_deliveries = true
ActionMailer::Base.deliveries = []
end

fixtures :users

context ?User? do
it ?should be create if all the credentials are provided? do
@user.attributes = valid_user_attributes
mail = Notifier.signup_notification(?user_1?)
ActionMailer::Base.deliveries.size.should == 1
mail.body.should =~ /Please signup/
@user.should be_valid
@user.save
end

Under notifier.rb it contains:
class Notifier < ActionMailer::Base
 helper :application
 #user notification
 def signup_notification( user )
    setup_email( user.email )
    @subject = "Please signup"
    @body[:user] = user
  end
end
Now here Notifier is another model which contains signup_ notification
method.
Is it the case that i would need to test that in notifier spec or is it
possible to get notifier model in user like by using include method

I tried using include like "include Notifier" but is is showing me error
as
user_spec.rb:2:in `include': wrong argument type Class (expected Module)
(TypeError)
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Fri Jan 22 04:01:39 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Amit Kulkarni)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:01:39 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing Email thriugh Rspec
In-Reply-To: <59890594d0de59b0496d0010538b7cef@ruby-forum.com>
References: <59890594d0de59b0496d0010538b7cef@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <4356a8c4fbe02d499f9b3d2bdb5fe4a3@ruby-forum.com>

I got the Notifier model included in the user spec like require 
'notifier.rb'
By adding this i can now access Notifier.deliver_signup_notification 
method(i checked up in the code and it user deliver before that)
Now i can access the method.
But another problem is i am getting error as "undefined method `email' 
for 327378:Fixnum" in app/models/notifier.rb:5:in `signup_notification' 
i.e. on this line "setup_email( user.email )"
This means that it is getting the user object.But i have added user in 
fixtures.
How can i add this user to point it to notifier object?



-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Fri Jan 22 05:24:48 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Amit Kulkarni)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:24:48 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing Email thriugh Rspec
In-Reply-To: <4356a8c4fbe02d499f9b3d2bdb5fe4a3@ruby-forum.com>
References: <59890594d0de59b0496d0010538b7cef@ruby-forum.com>
	<4356a8c4fbe02d499f9b3d2bdb5fe4a3@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <547f2fe7007020c5b75cf9a7365de1df@ruby-forum.com>

Hello all,
I got my problem solved.It was really a simple mistake.
I have a doubt that in development i can send a mail but in while 
testing(through Rspec) mail is not getting sent.
Do i need to change some configuration for testing?
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Fri Jan 22 06:23:11 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Sh Sr)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:23:11 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Call for a browser from command line in rakefile
Message-ID: <9d53c5056782edce67f7f35ef3de2812@ruby-forum.com>

I have a rakefile which run few tasks. I want to run my tests for
different browsers using the rakefile. What would be the best suited way
to achieve this? Please help.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From jko170 at gmail.com  Fri Jan 22 08:55:25 2010
From: jko170 at gmail.com (jko170)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:55:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing Email thriugh Rspec
In-Reply-To: <547f2fe7007020c5b75cf9a7365de1df@ruby-forum.com>
References: <59890594d0de59b0496d0010538b7cef@ruby-forum.com> 
	<4356a8c4fbe02d499f9b3d2bdb5fe4a3@ruby-forum.com>
	<547f2fe7007020c5b75cf9a7365de1df@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <e07764ea-0547-4403-a420-8a4c89248517@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

There is also the excellent email_spec gem:

http://github.com/bmabey/email-spec/

On Jan 22, 2:24?am, Amit Kulkarni <li... at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I got my problem solved.It was really a simple mistake.
> I have a doubt that in development i can send a mail but in while
> testing(through Rspec) mail is not getting sent.
> Do i need to change some configuration for testing?
> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From railsthinker at gmail.com  Fri Jan 22 14:46:49 2010
From: railsthinker at gmail.com (gokul murthy)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:16:49 +0530
Subject: [rspec-users] STDIN gets method issue with rspec
Message-ID: <99bb0f4f1001221146p30315958xdc20ec764dd7aa1f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I am new to rspec. I am trying to write a spec for a simple ruby program i.e

class First
def test
a = gets.chomp
return a
end
end

I have tried in different ways test method is called from the spec file. but
gets.chomp is not executing?

Please kindly advise me, how to write spec for this.

Thanks
Gokul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100123/0d255b5a/attachment.html>

From rogerdpack at gmail.com  Fri Jan 22 15:18:47 2010
From: rogerdpack at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:18:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] double warning in doze
Message-ID: <9113c723-90a9-4bd3-9a5d-a627f98fc03f@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>

When I run autospec, I typically see this double warning--might be
nice to clean it up a bit.

You must 'gem install win32console' to use colour on Windows
You must 'gem install win32console' to use colour on Windows

From itsme213 at hotmail.com  Fri Jan 22 17:27:36 2010
From: itsme213 at hotmail.com (Sophie)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:27:36 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Basic cucumber setup / usage question (OSX)
Message-ID: <hjd8on$p3g$1@ger.gmane.org>

I just installed cucumber and tried to run it on the included 
examples/self_test. I get  the error below:

self_test > cucumber features/lots_of_undefined.feature
no such file to load -- spec/expectations (LoadError)
/Users/s/.rvm/ruby-1.8.7-p174/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in 
`gem_original_require'

Any ideas?



From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jan 22 18:06:33 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:06:33 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Basic cucumber setup / usage question (OSX)
In-Reply-To: <hjd8on$p3g$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <hjd8on$p3g$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <39A273C9-6A97-44FC-B40A-ED54190D3CA7@gmail.com>

On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Sophie wrote:

> I just installed cucumber and tried to run it on the included examples/self_test. I get  the error below:

Please address cucumber questions to the cucumber list:

http://groups.google.com/group/cukes

RSpec questions are always welcome here, though :)

Cheers,
David

> 
> self_test > cucumber features/lots_of_undefined.feature
> no such file to load -- spec/expectations (LoadError)
> /Users/s/.rvm/ruby-1.8.7-p174/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `gem_original_require'
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jan 23 07:36:01 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:36:01 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] STDIN gets method issue with rspec
In-Reply-To: <99bb0f4f1001221146p30315958xdc20ec764dd7aa1f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <99bb0f4f1001221146p30315958xdc20ec764dd7aa1f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001230436k4de8cae6l3d0a31634b726137@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:46 PM, gokul murthy <railsthinker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I am new to rspec. I am trying to write a spec for a simple ruby program i.e
> class First
> def test
> a = gets.chomp
> return a
> end
> end
> I have tried in different ways test method is called from the spec file. but
> gets.chomp is not executing?
> Please kindly advise me, how to write spec for this.

Even though it seems simple, you've chosen a rather complex situation
to try to learn Rspec from. Did you pick this because you really need
to solve it, or is this just an academic exercise? If the latter,
let's start somewhere simpler, and get to things like simulating IO
later :)

It is always easiest to start with examples in which you can create an
object with some state, send it a message (call a method), and set
expectations about the result: given/when/then.

describe Person, "full name" do
  context "with a first and last name" do
    it "concats the names with a space between them" do
      #given
      person = Person.new(:first_name => "Gokul", :last_name => "Murthy")
      # when
      full_name = person.full_name
      #then
      full_name.should == "Gokul Murthy"
    end
  end
end

I separated out the When and Then to make it clear which is which, but
in practice I'd likely just write this:

    it "concats the names with a space between them" do
      person = Person.new(:first_name => "Gokul", :last_name => "Murthy")
      person.full_name.should == "Gokul Murthy"
    end

Now we have a pretty clear picture of how we want to create a Person
and how we want to ask for its name, and what our expected outcome is.

If you really want to know about specifying IO, let me know and I'll
show you a couple of ways to do it, but they are much less
straightforward.

Cheers,
David

> Thanks
> Gokul

From mguterl at gmail.com  Sat Jan 23 09:16:42 2010
From: mguterl at gmail.com (Michael Guterl)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:16:42 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] testing named_scope
In-Reply-To: <aa04bee9-5129-486f-a491-b5f00f93fe68@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
References: <aa04bee9-5129-486f-a491-b5f00f93fe68@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <944a03771001230616g1b986a69o5bd4be4271ca6531@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Nin <npdepolonia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! I'm new to rspec and was wondering how named_scopes are usually
> tested? Is it enough to test that it's defined? or do you need to test
> the behavior as well? I've been reading around and this seems to be
> the tester's choice, i just want to get people's opinion on this :D

While this is focused on shoulda, I still found it helpful for
demonstrating how to properly deal with testing named_scopes.

http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/200254501/testing-named-scopes

Best regards,
Michael Guterl

From ben at benmabey.com  Sat Jan 23 19:29:13 2010
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:29:13 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] testing named_scope
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001180217y22cd503au769201f5ff9d7a6e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <aa04bee9-5129-486f-a491-b5f00f93fe68@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>	<6BE00C1F-8409-401E-A5C6-B7C9D578EF67@patmaddox.com>
	<57c63afe1001180217y22cd503au769201f5ff9d7a6e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B5B9459.8060405@benmabey.com>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Pat Maddox <mailinglists at patmaddox.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Nin wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi! I'm new to rspec and was wondering how named_scopes are usually
>>> tested? Is it enough to test that it's defined? or do you need to test
>>> the behavior as well? I've been reading around and this seems to be
>>> the tester's choice, i just want to get people's opinion on this :D
>>>       
>> class User < ActiveRecord::Base
>>  named_scope :admins, :conditions => {:admin => true}
>> end
>>
>> describe User, "admins" do
>>  it "should include users with admin flag" do
>>    admin = User.create! :admin => true
>>    User.admin.should include(admin)
>>  end
>>
>>  it "should not include users without admin flag" do
>>    admin = User.create! :admin => false
>>    User.admin.should_not include(admin)
>>  end
>> end
>>     
>
> Small style matter, but I've leaning towards more declarative sounding
> example names:
>
> describe User, ".admins" do
>   it "includes users with admin flag" do
>     admin = User.create! :admin => true
>     User.admin.should include(admin)
>   end
>
>   it "excludes users without admin flag" do
>     non_admin = User.create! :admin => false
>     User.admin.should_not include(non_admin)
>   end
> end
>
> class User < ActiveRecord::Base
>   named_scope :admins, :conditions => {:admin => true}
> end
>
> We still have 'should' in the examples, but this produces more
> 'spec-like' output:
>
> User.admins
>   includes users with admin flag
>   excludes users without admin flag
>
> FWIW,
> David
>   

Another small style matter.. I like using the :: notation for class 
methods as that is what the documentation tools tend to use (RDoc and Yard):

describe User, "::admins" do
...
...
end


On the topic of RSpec as a form of documentation has anyone used the 
yard-doc rspec plugin?  It appears to be pretty limited ATM but seems 
very cool with a lot of potential.  Just like Ioke's docs it embeds the 
specs as part of the documentation with the option to view the source.  
Here is the example from the projects home page:

http://lsegal.github.com/yard-spec-plugin/String.html#pig_latin-instance_method

-Ben

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Sat Jan 23 22:24:51 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nick Hoffman)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 04:24:51 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <e80a7f5563cf239dadea8c5ff170edb3@ruby-forum.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001110546g762cb3e5pfba7227cc8b0b960@mail.gmail.com>
	<c56159643240ad84282381869776b49e@ruby-forum.com>
	<4B4C1F5C.3010506@yahoo.com>
	<0cc23fb5c587c4e1232fe5adbbfaa208@ruby-forum.com>
	<93f60ccf6698a5d0e8d470ce7cc280ec@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001130633l3d96bb9ev657c760c5d31ce61@mail.gmail.com>
	<e189332d2792fa4816ad61861127fb3f@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001130827m4b1d1cdan30799db17b98a163@mail.gmail.com>
	<e80a7f5563cf239dadea8c5ff170edb3@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <bc5f47e7a0c3a61944a8b896dd788ea9@ruby-forum.com>

Hey guys. I have two different paths that lead to the same controller 
and action:
  map.connect 'foods/search/:name', :controller => 'foods', :action => 
'search'
  map.food    ':name',              :controller => 'foods', :action => 
'search'

Unfortunately, the spec for the second route fails because #route_to 
finds and uses the first route when generating the path for
  :controller => 'foods', :action => 'search', :name => 'almonds'

routes.rb: http://codepad.org/CjKRynr5
specs:     http://codepad.org/838oV3mW

Is there a solution to this problem?

Thanks,
Nick
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From rjharmon0316 at yahoo.com  Sun Jan 24 13:43:01 2010
From: rjharmon0316 at yahoo.com (Randy Harmon)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:43:01 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] Troubles with route_for
In-Reply-To: <bc5f47e7a0c3a61944a8b896dd788ea9@ruby-forum.com>
References: <fad776473f0741a7e0558c7ef66ceebe@ruby-forum.com>	<57c63afe1001110546g762cb3e5pfba7227cc8b0b960@mail.gmail.com>	<c56159643240ad84282381869776b49e@ruby-forum.com>	<4B4C1F5C.3010506@yahoo.com>	<0cc23fb5c587c4e1232fe5adbbfaa208@ruby-forum.com>	<93f60ccf6698a5d0e8d470ce7cc280ec@ruby-forum.com>	<57c63afe1001130633l3d96bb9ev657c760c5d31ce61@mail.gmail.com>	<e189332d2792fa4816ad61861127fb3f@ruby-forum.com>	<57c63afe1001130827m4b1d1cdan30799db17b98a163@mail.gmail.com>	<e80a7f5563cf239dadea8c5ff170edb3@ruby-forum.com>
	<bc5f47e7a0c3a61944a8b896dd788ea9@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <4B5C94B5.2000407@yahoo.com>

I guess the distinction is that you generate food_path()'s based on
existing food names, and search comes from users - but you don't have a
distinct landing page for each food, hence no need for resource-based
routing for foods.

You could define a :show action in your controller, which simply calls
the 'search' action. 

def show
    search
end

Then they'll have different controller-actions and different paths, yet
the implementations would be identical.  And the specs can describe them
distinctly.

I'd be curious if there are other ways to do this.

Randy



On 1/23/10 7:24 PM, Nick Hoffman wrote:
> Hey guys. I have two different paths that lead to the same controller 
> and action:
>   map.connect 'foods/search/:name', :controller => 'foods', :action => 
> 'search'
>   map.food    ':name',              :controller => 'foods', :action => 
> 'search'
>
> Unfortunately, the spec for the second route fails because #route_to 
> finds and uses the first route when generating the path for
>   :controller => 'foods', :action => 'search', :name => 'almonds'
>
> routes.rb: http://codepad.org/CjKRynr5
> specs:     http://codepad.org/838oV3mW
>
> Is there a solution to this problem?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>   


From lists at ruby-forum.com  Sun Jan 24 18:10:32 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Saverio Miroddi)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:10:32 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Stub activerecord find given instance?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001121949h444bc715x89fee7e8bc81f84c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <be669cdfa9f395844abcc6e3783f9d1a@ruby-forum.com>
	<4A3616AC-32C2-478C-B20D-DF65FE1C031E@experthuman.com>
	<fa3a50ced2abe969edf8d3992b1b63cd@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe0912140439y4c5a00fbtb65d155eccd5426f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ccd2a6b3458f92cec8e9a2c365ad591d@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001121949h444bc715x89fee7e8bc81f84c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fa38cf62a4de56b1a450dcfc8feb9463@ruby-forum.com>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> It'd be much easier to help you if you could provide an example more
> representative of what you are actually trying to accomplish.

So, here it is (note: this is NOT representative of a properly 
engineered behavior):

class MyModel
  def my_parent
    self.find( my_parent_id )
  end
end

class MyController < ...
  def show
    m = MyModel.find( params[ :id ] )
    mp = m.my_parent

    @m_value = m.value
    @mp_value = mp.value
  end
end

now, suppose I want to stub a behavior only for the child object ('m').
so my intention in the spec is to:

- create the child and his parent
- stub MyModel#value in the child
- stub MyModel.find to return "m" _only_ when called with the child id, 
otherwise it should do its usual business. if I stub generically, 
m#my_parent would return "m" itself.

the test would be:

it "should display a stubbed value for the children" do
  mp = MyModel.create!( :value => 0xCAFEBABE )
  m  = MyModel.create!( :my_parent_id => mp.id, :value => 64738 )

  m.stub!( :value ).with( m.id ).and_return( 42 )

  get :show, :id => m.id
end

what happens is:
- if I don't use ".with( m.id )", @m_value and @mp_value will have 
m.value assigned.
- if I use ".with( m.id )", I even get an error "undefined method `find' 
for #<Class:0x7f2b3116a2c0>" at the line "self.find( my_parent_id )" 
inside the method MyModel#my_parent.

Hope this clarified, it's not real production code, but it models a 
behavior sometimes I actually needed.

Saverio
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From paul.t.hinze at gmail.com  Sun Jan 24 22:05:15 2010
From: paul.t.hinze at gmail.com (Paul Hinze)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:05:15 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Stub activerecord find given instance?
In-Reply-To: <fa38cf62a4de56b1a450dcfc8feb9463@ruby-forum.com>
References: <be669cdfa9f395844abcc6e3783f9d1a@ruby-forum.com>
	<4A3616AC-32C2-478C-B20D-DF65FE1C031E@experthuman.com>
	<fa3a50ced2abe969edf8d3992b1b63cd@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe0912140439y4c5a00fbtb65d155eccd5426f@mail.gmail.com>
	<ccd2a6b3458f92cec8e9a2c365ad591d@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe1001121949h444bc715x89fee7e8bc81f84c@mail.gmail.com>
	<fa38cf62a4de56b1a450dcfc8feb9463@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <6c35a5c91001241905r1205fc12me243fb28f1c2cca5@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Saverio Miroddi <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>> It'd be much easier to help you if you could provide an example more
>> representative of what you are actually trying to accomplish.
>
> class MyModel
> ?def my_parent
> ? ?self.find( my_parent_id )
> ?end
> end
>
> class MyController < ...
> ?def show
> ? ?m = MyModel.find( params[ :id ] )
> ? ?mp = m.my_parent
>
> ? ?@m_value = m.value
> ? ?@mp_value = mp.value
> ?end
> end

Hi Saverio,

Following this thread, and still having trouble understanding what it
it you are trying to accomplish.

> now, suppose I want to stub a behavior only for the child object ('m').
> so my intention in the spec is to:
>
> - create the child and his parent
> - stub MyModel#value in the child
> - stub MyModel.find to return "m" _only_ when called with the child id,
> otherwise it should do its usual business. if I stub generically,
> m#my_parent would return "m" itself.

The below test does not accomplish this third point...  I'll explain below.

> the test would be:
>
> it "should display a stubbed value for the children" do
> ?mp = MyModel.create!( :value => 0xCAFEBABE )
> ?m ?= MyModel.create!( :my_parent_id => mp.id, :value => 64738 )
>
> ?m.stub!( :value ).with( m.id ).and_return( 42 )

Here you are creating a stub on the instance `m`, not stubbing
`MyModel.find` as you explain above.  Perhaps you meant something more
like this?

  m.stub!(:value).and_return(42)
  MyModel.stub!(:find).with(m.id).and_return(m)

>  get :show, :id => m.id

Given the text you use in the example description ('should display a
value for the children') I wonder why you are passing the _child's_ id
into the show action.  This seems off to me... are you actually
testing that the _parent's_ value is shown in the action?

> end

In fact, since it looks like `value` is just an attribute of MyModel
here, I wonder why you would need to stub at all, when you can just
specify the value you are expecting when you create the `m` instance
in the test?  It is hard to tell since you aren't including any
verification in the example you gave.  What is it you are actually
trying to test here?  My best guess would be that you're going for
something like this:

  it "displays parent's :value attribute" do
    expected_value = 386438247
    value_i_dont_care_about = 123
    mp = MyModel.create!( :value => expected_value )
    m  = MyModel.create!( :my_parent_id => mp.id, :value =>
value_i_dont_care_about )
    get "show", :id => m.id
    response.should include(expected_value)
  end

The above tests that when you render a "show" for instance `m` that
`m`'s parent's 'value' attribute shows up somewhere on the page.

What are you hoping for the stub to accomplish for you in this test?

> what happens is:
> - if I don't use ".with( m.id )", @m_value and @mp_value will have
> m.value assigned.

This makes sense if you are indeed stubbing `MyModel.find` without
using `with` similar to my guess above, since any arguments you pass
would be ignored and the instance `m` would be returned in all cases.

> - if I use ".with( m.id )", I even get an error "undefined method `find'
> for #<Class:0x7f2b3116a2c0>" at the line "self.find( my_parent_id )"
> inside the method MyModel#my_parent.

This is odd, and I'm not sure without more context why this would be
happening.  My guess is that something else wasn't wired up correctly
when you tried to do this.

> Hope this clarified, it's not real production code, but it models a
> behavior sometimes I actually needed.

I think some more clarification is needed in order for us to properly help you.

 a) What is the exact behavior you are trying to test?
 b) Why do you believe that a stub would help you test this behavior?

Hope this helps get us going in the right direction at least, :)

Paul

From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 27 00:21:40 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:21:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] unable to describe...expected?
Message-ID: <6f688f9a-2811-4a31-a03b-7a695327d75b@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>

Question.
I noticed that this code:

class Redcar::Project
  describe FileMirror do

is allowed, however this code

module Redcar
 describe Project do
    ...


is not.
Is this expected?
-r

From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 27 00:37:27 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:37:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] unable to describe...expected?
In-Reply-To: <6f688f9a-2811-4a31-a03b-7a695327d75b@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
References: <6f688f9a-2811-4a31-a03b-7a695327d75b@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <2c1a68a6-b876-4eb7-ab7f-168a56df6faf@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>

> is allowed, however this code
>
> module Redcar
> ?describe Project do
> ? ? ...
>
> is not.

Oops--appears the problem was that I was running it as ruby instead of
spec (and/or including autorun).  Sorry for the noise.
-r

From firatcanbasarir at gmail.com  Wed Jan 27 04:39:15 2010
From: firatcanbasarir at gmail.com (Firat Can Basarir)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:39:15 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Typo on web-page
Message-ID: <68f1c5511001270139l59ee8afeh989ad3cfcb72766c@mail.gmail.com>

There is a typo on the documentation page:

http://rspec.info/rails/writing/controllers.html

"Spec::Raiks" on the 2nd line of 2nd paragraph. I don't know whom to
contact about this. I hope the website maintainer is subscribed to
this list or someone can redirect this to him.

F?rat

From paul.t.hinze at gmail.com  Thu Jan 28 08:29:49 2010
From: paul.t.hinze at gmail.com (Paul Hinze)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:29:49 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Message expectation that verifies result of passed
	block
Message-ID: <20100128132949.GV6554@malachai>

Hey speclers,

My spec-fu is failing me on a message expectation in which I would like to
verify that the block passed to a certain method yields the proper
value.  I would like to be able to say something like:

def bar
  # .. some code
  foo do
    'bar' # want to verify this value
  end
end

describe 'bar' do
  it 'calls foo with proper block' do
    should_receive(:foo).with(block_yielding('bar'))
  end
end

The problem I've been banging my head against is the fact that I can't
seem to capture the passed block using this notation:

  should_receive(:foo) { |*args, &block|
    yield.should == 'bar'      # breaks
    block.call.should == 'bar' # no dice
  }

I believe the lack of ability to use this notation comes down to a ruby
limitation, but I'm not sure.  If that's the case, then we would need a
specific argument expectation (along the lines of my suggestion) that
executes in a context in which it can call the block.

Am I missing something obvious here, or does rspec currently not allow
for this easily?  If not, let's discuss how it should look and I can
work on adding feature.

Cheers,

Paul

From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Thu Jan 28 12:49:42 2010
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:49:42 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Can I set an expectation that a method invokes super?
Message-ID: <deb2337a1001280949y42d5606ei2cf32ada3d293840@mail.gmail.com>

Not sure if I can easily do this

Just ran into a bug in a rails app where ApplicationController
overrides rescue_action_in_public leading to the error page not being
displayed.

The fix was to call super at the end of the method.

I'd like to write a spec to ensure that this doesn't regress, but my
imagination is failing me as to how to do it.

Any ideas?

-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Thu Jan 28 13:54:22 2010
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] somewhat confused by the help instructions...
Message-ID: <2a39e8e4-72b7-4f37-9e1e-f358eebf5d3c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>

As a note of feedback, when I do a spec --help, I saw this line...

    -e, --example [NAME|FILE_NAME]   Execute example(s) with matching
name(s). If the argument is
                                     the path to an existing file
(typically generated by a previous
                                     run using --format
failing_examples:file.txt), then the examples
                                     on each line of that file will be
executed. If the file is empty,
                                     all examples will be run (as if --
example was not specified).

so I, trying to be clever, passed it something to match:

E:\dev\ruby\spork>spec spec/spork/run_strategy/single* -e"the result"


Finished in 0.125 seconds

0 examples, 0 failures


Passing it the full test name seems to work, however:

E:\dev\ruby\spork>spec spec/spork/run_strategy/single* -e"returns the
result of the run_tests method from the forked child"
...

Finished in 0.34375 seconds

3 examples, 0 failures


Suggestion:

rephrase the help as "runs the test whose name equals the one
specified" (instead of using the word "matches" which to me somehow
meant "regex"), or

change the matching to be regex matching (this one is what I would
personally prefer--then you don't have to put full test names on the
command line).

Thoughts?
-r


From ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk  Thu Jan 28 14:14:44 2010
From: ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:14:44 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Can I set an expectation that a method invokes
	super?
In-Reply-To: <deb2337a1001280949y42d5606ei2cf32ada3d293840@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deb2337a1001280949y42d5606ei2cf32ada3d293840@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <748A6120-8765-4228-B826-52279FAC1C16@patchspace.co.uk>


On Jan 28, 2010, at 5:49 pm, Rick DeNatale wrote:

> I'd like to write a spec to ensure that this doesn't regress, but my
> imagination is failing me as to how to do it.
> 
> Any ideas?

Yes: don't use inheritance for implementations.  The bug you describe is arguably a violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle, ie the derived class changed the functionality it inherited in a way that broke the expected behaviour of all derived classes.

If you can write a spec (possibly shared examples) that defines the contract you expect *all* controllers to follow - eg display an error page in this situation - you can run that against all your controllers.  Checking that you call `super` doesn't necessarily give you this security.

If you want to post #rescue_action_in_public there might be another way, depending on your code.  I'm no Rails guru though.

BTW if this sounds like a rant, it is :)  I am constantly stamping my feet over the way controllers in Rails, Merb etc are implemented, as they make writing specs extremely difficult.

Let me know if this is not clear as I've thrown the email together in a hurry before going home for the night...

Ashley

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran


From ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk  Thu Jan 28 14:27:17 2010
From: ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:27:17 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Message expectation that verifies result of
	passed block
In-Reply-To: <20100128132949.GV6554@malachai>
References: <20100128132949.GV6554@malachai>
Message-ID: <CEEE9A35-24C4-4C9E-B19B-548F6056C369@patchspace.co.uk>


On Jan 28, 2010, at 1:29 pm, Paul Hinze wrote:

> I believe the lack of ability to use this notation comes down to a ruby
> limitation, but I'm not sure.  If that's the case, then we would need a
> specific argument expectation (along the lines of my suggestion) that
> executes in a context in which it can call the block.

I can't find a solution, I suspect Ruby 1.8 can't do this, but I'm guessing.

Can I ask why you want to do this though?  As another example, it would be unusual to spec something like:

  @array = [1, 2, 3]
  @array.should_receive(:map).with(block_that_doubles_values)

You'd instead check that the array that came out was [2, 4, 6].

Ashley

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran


From paul.t.hinze at gmail.com  Thu Jan 28 16:14:02 2010
From: paul.t.hinze at gmail.com (Paul Hinze)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:14:02 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Message expectation that verifies result
	of	passed block
In-Reply-To: <CEEE9A35-24C4-4C9E-B19B-548F6056C369@patchspace.co.uk>
References: <20100128132949.GV6554@malachai>
	<CEEE9A35-24C4-4C9E-B19B-548F6056C369@patchspace.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20100128211402.GY6554@malachai>

Ashley Moran <ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk> on 2010-01-28 at 13:28:
> 
> On Jan 28, 2010, at 1:29 pm, Paul Hinze wrote:
> 
> > I believe the lack of ability to use this notation comes down to a ruby
> > limitation, but I'm not sure.  If that's the case, then we would need a
> > specific argument expectation (along the lines of my suggestion) that
> > executes in a context in which it can call the block.
> 
> I can't find a solution, I suspect Ruby 1.8 can't do this, but I'm guessing.
> 
> Can I ask why you want to do this though?  As another example, it
> would be unusual to spec something like:
> 
>   @array = [1, 2, 3]
>   @array.should_receive(:map).with(block_that_doubles_values)
> 
> You'd instead check that the array that came out was [2, 4, 6].

I'm trying to spec a large set of what essentially come down to
decorator methods in a Rails FormBuilder extension plugin.  What this
boils down to is methods that wrap rails FormBuilder methods, so
`f.text(*args)` ends up calling `f.text_field(*args)` to generate an
<input> tag, but only after it does its own logic and wrapping, which
among a bunch of other things wraps the output in an <li>.

So the methods run the gamut in complexity from 'f.radio' to
'f.dependent_collection' to 'f.sigma', but much of the common code is
wrapped up in a method called 'f.question', which does the outer <li>
wrapping, required field detection, label and error display, and a few
other common things required by every control we use in our forms.

So most of our methods have this basic structure:

  class OurFormBuilder < ActionView::Helpers::FormBuilder
    def foo_text(method, options={})
      foo_option = options.delete(:foo_option)
      options[:value] ||= 'FOO'

      # some logic, using foo_option somewhere... 

      question(method, options) do |remaining_options|
        'FOO -->' + text_field(method, remaining_options) + '<-- FOO'
      end
    end
  end

I started out with a nice spec for `question`'s behavior and made it all
in a shared group, but because of the number of examples just for
question and the number of methods that call it (so both performance and
complexity), I'm thinking about switching to message expectations in all
of my `foo_text`-style method specs:

  describe 'foo_text'
    it 'calls text field with the proper options' do
      @builder.should_receive(:text_field).with(:some_method, :proper_args)
      @builder.foo_text(:some_method)
    end
    it 'yields a wrapped text_field into question' do
      # dont test rails text_field
      text_field_return = "BOOGA"
      @builder.stub!(:text_field).and_return(text_field_return)

      expected = "FOO -->" + text_field_return + "<-- FOO"
      @builder.should_receive(:question).with(:some_method).with_a_block_yielding(expected)

      @builder.foo_text(:some_method, :some => options)
    end
    it 'properly returns the result of the call to question' do
      @builder.stub!(:question).and_return('BOOGA')
      xhtml = @builder.foo_text(:some_method)
      xhtml.should == 'BOOGA'
    end
  end

I'd appreciate any feedback that folks might be willing to give.
Particularly I realize the following:

 (a) This might be testing implementation too much (possible)
 (b) The architecture of the whole plugin needs a serious refactor to
     increase modularity and decouple the components (very likely); a
     dash of decent OO design could really help this whole situation,
     and it's something I'm planning on tackling down the road
 
For now, I'm just trying to push things in the right direction, and I
_think_ the .with_a_block_yielding(value) or .with(block_yielding(value))
argument verification would help me do that.

Thanks for your time!

Paul

From godfoca at gmail.com  Thu Jan 28 16:43:35 2010
From: godfoca at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Sanguinetti?=)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:43:35 -0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Message expectation that verifies result of
	passed block
In-Reply-To: <20100128211402.GY6554@malachai>
References: <20100128132949.GV6554@malachai>
	<CEEE9A35-24C4-4C9E-B19B-548F6056C369@patchspace.co.uk>
	<20100128211402.GY6554@malachai>
Message-ID: <e30c8b941001281343l455dc31bpa368dbee7bcda136@mail.gmail.com>

You're definitely testing too much implementation and not enough behavior.

Basically, what you want to spec, is that provided some options, when
you call a certain method of your form builder, you get a certain html
output. At least that's how I would approach the problem.

So I would have something like this:

it "produces a correctly formatted FOO input" do
  html = @builder.foo_text(...)
  html.should == "<label for='foo'>FOO</label> <input id='foo'....>"
end

Since testing generated HTML like that sucks, I would proceed to use
something like http://github.com/fnando/rspec-hpricot-matchers, and
say

it "produces a correctly formatted FOO input" do
  html = @builder.foo_text(...)
  html.should have_tag("label", :for => "foo")
  html.should have_tag("input", :id => "foo")
end

Or something like that. But then if you stop using that
question(*args, &block) method, and refactor to a different
implementation, specs should continue to pass.

-foca

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Paul Hinze <paul.t.hinze at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ashley Moran <ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk> on 2010-01-28 at 13:28:
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2010, at 1:29 pm, Paul Hinze wrote:
>>
>> > I believe the lack of ability to use this notation comes down to a ruby
>> > limitation, but I'm not sure. ?If that's the case, then we would need a
>> > specific argument expectation (along the lines of my suggestion) that
>> > executes in a context in which it can call the block.
>>
>> I can't find a solution, I suspect Ruby 1.8 can't do this, but I'm guessing.
>>
>> Can I ask why you want to do this though? ?As another example, it
>> would be unusual to spec something like:
>>
>> ? @array = [1, 2, 3]
>> ? @array.should_receive(:map).with(block_that_doubles_values)
>>
>> You'd instead check that the array that came out was [2, 4, 6].
>
> I'm trying to spec a large set of what essentially come down to
> decorator methods in a Rails FormBuilder extension plugin. ?What this
> boils down to is methods that wrap rails FormBuilder methods, so
> `f.text(*args)` ends up calling `f.text_field(*args)` to generate an
> <input> tag, but only after it does its own logic and wrapping, which
> among a bunch of other things wraps the output in an <li>.
>
> So the methods run the gamut in complexity from 'f.radio' to
> 'f.dependent_collection' to 'f.sigma', but much of the common code is
> wrapped up in a method called 'f.question', which does the outer <li>
> wrapping, required field detection, label and error display, and a few
> other common things required by every control we use in our forms.
>
> So most of our methods have this basic structure:
>
> ?class OurFormBuilder < ActionView::Helpers::FormBuilder
> ? ?def foo_text(method, options={})
> ? ? ?foo_option = options.delete(:foo_option)
> ? ? ?options[:value] ||= 'FOO'
>
> ? ? ?# some logic, using foo_option somewhere...
>
> ? ? ?question(method, options) do |remaining_options|
> ? ? ? ?'FOO -->' + text_field(method, remaining_options) + '<-- FOO'
> ? ? ?end
> ? ?end
> ?end
>
> I started out with a nice spec for `question`'s behavior and made it all
> in a shared group, but because of the number of examples just for
> question and the number of methods that call it (so both performance and
> complexity), I'm thinking about switching to message expectations in all
> of my `foo_text`-style method specs:
>
> ?describe 'foo_text'
> ? ?it 'calls text field with the proper options' do
> ? ? ?@builder.should_receive(:text_field).with(:some_method, :proper_args)
> ? ? ?@builder.foo_text(:some_method)
> ? ?end
> ? ?it 'yields a wrapped text_field into question' do
> ? ? ?# dont test rails text_field
> ? ? ?text_field_return = "BOOGA"
> ? ? ?@builder.stub!(:text_field).and_return(text_field_return)
>
> ? ? ?expected = "FOO -->" + text_field_return + "<-- FOO"
> ? ? ?@builder.should_receive(:question).with(:some_method).with_a_block_yielding(expected)
>
> ? ? ?@builder.foo_text(:some_method, :some => options)
> ? ?end
> ? ?it 'properly returns the result of the call to question' do
> ? ? ?@builder.stub!(:question).and_return('BOOGA')
> ? ? ?xhtml = @builder.foo_text(:some_method)
> ? ? ?xhtml.should == 'BOOGA'
> ? ?end
> ?end
>
> I'd appreciate any feedback that folks might be willing to give.
> Particularly I realize the following:
>
> ?(a) This might be testing implementation too much (possible)
> ?(b) The architecture of the whole plugin needs a serious refactor to
> ? ? increase modularity and decouple the components (very likely); a
> ? ? dash of decent OO design could really help this whole situation,
> ? ? and it's something I'm planning on tackling down the road
>
> For now, I'm just trying to push things in the right direction, and I
> _think_ the .with_a_block_yielding(value) or .with(block_yielding(value))
> argument verification would help me do that.
>
> Thanks for your time!
>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From matt at mattwynne.net  Thu Jan 28 17:45:01 2010
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:45:01 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Message expectation that verifies result
	of	passed block
In-Reply-To: <20100128211402.GY6554@malachai>
References: <20100128132949.GV6554@malachai>
	<CEEE9A35-24C4-4C9E-B19B-548F6056C369@patchspace.co.uk>
	<20100128211402.GY6554@malachai>
Message-ID: <20F2C73D-2BE2-43B0-AFB0-B05BE6A633CF@mattwynne.net>


On 28 Jan 2010, at 21:14, Paul Hinze wrote:

> Ashley Moran <ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk> on 2010-01-28 at 13:28:
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2010, at 1:29 pm, Paul Hinze wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the lack of ability to use this notation comes down to a  
>>> ruby
>>> limitation, but I'm not sure.  If that's the case, then we would  
>>> need a
>>> specific argument expectation (along the lines of my suggestion)  
>>> that
>>> executes in a context in which it can call the block.
>>
>> I can't find a solution, I suspect Ruby 1.8 can't do this, but I'm  
>> guessing.
>>
>> Can I ask why you want to do this though?  As another example, it
>> would be unusual to spec something like:
>>
>>  @array = [1, 2, 3]
>>  @array.should_receive(:map).with(block_that_doubles_values)
>>
>> You'd instead check that the array that came out was [2, 4, 6].
>
> I'm trying to spec a large set of what essentially come down to
> decorator methods in a Rails FormBuilder extension plugin.  What this
> boils down to is methods that wrap rails FormBuilder methods, so
> `f.text(*args)` ends up calling `f.text_field(*args)` to generate an
> <input> tag, but only after it does its own logic and wrapping, which
> among a bunch of other things wraps the output in an <li>.
>
> So the methods run the gamut in complexity from 'f.radio' to
> 'f.dependent_collection' to 'f.sigma', but much of the common code is
> wrapped up in a method called 'f.question', which does the outer <li>
> wrapping, required field detection, label and error display, and a few
> other common things required by every control we use in our forms.
>
> So most of our methods have this basic structure:
>
>  class OurFormBuilder < ActionView::Helpers::FormBuilder
>    def foo_text(method, options={})
>      foo_option = options.delete(:foo_option)
>      options[:value] ||= 'FOO'
>
>      # some logic, using foo_option somewhere...
>
>      question(method, options) do |remaining_options|
>        'FOO -->' + text_field(method, remaining_options) + '<-- FOO'
>      end
>    end
>  end
>
> I started out with a nice spec for `question`'s behavior and made it  
> all
> in a shared group, but because of the number of examples just for
> question and the number of methods that call it (so both performance  
> and
> complexity), I'm thinking about switching to message expectations in  
> all
> of my `foo_text`-style method specs:
>
>  describe 'foo_text'
>    it 'calls text field with the proper options' do
>       
> @builder.should_receive(:text_field).with(:some_method, :proper_args)
>      @builder.foo_text(:some_method)
>    end
>    it 'yields a wrapped text_field into question' do
>      # dont test rails text_field
>      text_field_return = "BOOGA"
>      @builder.stub!(:text_field).and_return(text_field_return)
>
>      expected = "FOO -->" + text_field_return + "<-- FOO"
>       
> @builder 
> .should_receive 
> (:question).with(:some_method).with_a_block_yielding(expected)
>
>      @builder.foo_text(:some_method, :some => options)
>    end
>    it 'properly returns the result of the call to question' do
>      @builder.stub!(:question).and_return('BOOGA')
>      xhtml = @builder.foo_text(:some_method)
>      xhtml.should == 'BOOGA'
>    end
>  end
>
> I'd appreciate any feedback that folks might be willing to give.
> Particularly I realize the following:
>
> (a) This might be testing implementation too much (possible)

I'd say so. I would think the most stable seam around which to write  
tests for this is where you call the FormBuilder to make HTML. I would  
not start tinkering around inside it with mocks between inheritance  
layers like that - it's a path that will make it very hard to do any  
refactoring in future.

> (b) The architecture of the whole plugin needs a serious refactor to
>     increase modularity and decouple the components (very likely); a
>     dash of decent OO design could really help this whole situation,
>     and it's something I'm planning on tackling down the road
>
> For now, I'm just trying to push things in the right direction, and I
> _think_ the .with_a_block_yielding(value)  
> or .with(block_yielding(value))
> argument verification would help me do that.
>
> Thanks for your time!
>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

cheers,
Matt

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From matt at mattwynne.net  Thu Jan 28 17:45:50 2010
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:45:50 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Message expectation that verifies result of
	passed block
In-Reply-To: <e30c8b941001281343l455dc31bpa368dbee7bcda136@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20100128132949.GV6554@malachai>
	<CEEE9A35-24C4-4C9E-B19B-548F6056C369@patchspace.co.uk>
	<20100128211402.GY6554@malachai>
	<e30c8b941001281343l455dc31bpa368dbee7bcda136@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EBE60EBA-CCCE-4A96-9E4F-37FD101845B2@mattwynne.net>


On 28 Jan 2010, at 21:43, Nicol?s Sanguinetti wrote:

> You're definitely testing too much implementation and not enough  
> behavior.
>
> Basically, what you want to spec, is that provided some options, when
> you call a certain method of your form builder, you get a certain html
> output. At least that's how I would approach the problem.
>
> So I would have something like this:
>
> it "produces a correctly formatted FOO input" do
>  html = @builder.foo_text(...)
>  html.should == "<label for='foo'>FOO</label> <input id='foo'....>"
> end
>
> Since testing generated HTML like that sucks, I would proceed to use
> something like http://github.com/fnando/rspec-hpricot-matchers, and
> say
>
> it "produces a correctly formatted FOO input" do
>  html = @builder.foo_text(...)
>  html.should have_tag("label", :for => "foo")
>  html.should have_tag("input", :id => "foo")
> end
>
> Or something like that. But then if you stop using that
> question(*args, &block) method, and refactor to a different
> implementation, specs should continue to pass.

What he said.


> -foca
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Paul Hinze <paul.t.hinze at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> Ashley Moran <ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk> on 2010-01-28 at 13:28:
>>>
>>> On Jan 28, 2010, at 1:29 pm, Paul Hinze wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe the lack of ability to use this notation comes down to  
>>>> a ruby
>>>> limitation, but I'm not sure.  If that's the case, then we would  
>>>> need a
>>>> specific argument expectation (along the lines of my suggestion)  
>>>> that
>>>> executes in a context in which it can call the block.
>>>
>>> I can't find a solution, I suspect Ruby 1.8 can't do this, but I'm  
>>> guessing.
>>>
>>> Can I ask why you want to do this though?  As another example, it
>>> would be unusual to spec something like:
>>>
>>>   @array = [1, 2, 3]
>>>   @array.should_receive(:map).with(block_that_doubles_values)
>>>
>>> You'd instead check that the array that came out was [2, 4, 6].
>>
>> I'm trying to spec a large set of what essentially come down to
>> decorator methods in a Rails FormBuilder extension plugin.  What this
>> boils down to is methods that wrap rails FormBuilder methods, so
>> `f.text(*args)` ends up calling `f.text_field(*args)` to generate an
>> <input> tag, but only after it does its own logic and wrapping, which
>> among a bunch of other things wraps the output in an <li>.
>>
>> So the methods run the gamut in complexity from 'f.radio' to
>> 'f.dependent_collection' to 'f.sigma', but much of the common code is
>> wrapped up in a method called 'f.question', which does the outer <li>
>> wrapping, required field detection, label and error display, and a  
>> few
>> other common things required by every control we use in our forms.
>>
>> So most of our methods have this basic structure:
>>
>>  class OurFormBuilder < ActionView::Helpers::FormBuilder
>>    def foo_text(method, options={})
>>      foo_option = options.delete(:foo_option)
>>      options[:value] ||= 'FOO'
>>
>>      # some logic, using foo_option somewhere...
>>
>>      question(method, options) do |remaining_options|
>>        'FOO -->' + text_field(method, remaining_options) + '<-- FOO'
>>      end
>>    end
>>  end
>>
>> I started out with a nice spec for `question`'s behavior and made  
>> it all
>> in a shared group, but because of the number of examples just for
>> question and the number of methods that call it (so both  
>> performance and
>> complexity), I'm thinking about switching to message expectations  
>> in all
>> of my `foo_text`-style method specs:
>>
>>  describe 'foo_text'
>>    it 'calls text field with the proper options' do
>>       
>> @builder.should_receive(:text_field).with(:some_method, :proper_args)
>>      @builder.foo_text(:some_method)
>>    end
>>    it 'yields a wrapped text_field into question' do
>>      # dont test rails text_field
>>      text_field_return = "BOOGA"
>>      @builder.stub!(:text_field).and_return(text_field_return)
>>
>>      expected = "FOO -->" + text_field_return + "<-- FOO"
>>       
>> @builder 
>> .should_receive 
>> (:question).with(:some_method).with_a_block_yielding(expected)
>>
>>      @builder.foo_text(:some_method, :some => options)
>>    end
>>    it 'properly returns the result of the call to question' do
>>      @builder.stub!(:question).and_return('BOOGA')
>>      xhtml = @builder.foo_text(:some_method)
>>      xhtml.should == 'BOOGA'
>>    end
>>  end
>>
>> I'd appreciate any feedback that folks might be willing to give.
>> Particularly I realize the following:
>>
>>  (a) This might be testing implementation too much (possible)
>>  (b) The architecture of the whole plugin needs a serious refactor to
>>     increase modularity and decouple the components (very likely); a
>>     dash of decent OO design could really help this whole situation,
>>     and it's something I'm planning on tackling down the road
>>
>> For now, I'm just trying to push things in the right direction, and I
>> _think_ the .with_a_block_yielding(value)  
>> or .with(block_yielding(value))
>> argument verification would help me do that.
>>
>> Thanks for your time!
>>
>> Paul
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

cheers,
Matt

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From lists at ruby-forum.com  Thu Jan 28 23:49:32 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Deven Patel)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:49:32 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing file attachment with Paperclip
In-Reply-To: <998249DD-DBC1-43C7-B3DD-41EDC97CCF88@gmail.com>
References: <998249DD-DBC1-43C7-B3DD-41EDC97CCF88@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8b756e5cc8f7030d615744894d977794@ruby-forum.com>

Nicholas Wieland wrote:
> Does someone have an example on faking a file upload for just ensuring
> it gets called, without actually uploading the file to s3.
> I thought that stubbing Model.has_attached_file would be enough, but
> it doesn't seem so ...
> 
> This is what I did:
> 
> Video.stub!( :has_attached_file ).with( :name ).and_return( true )
> 
> has_attached_file is from paperclip, it gets mixed to the model.
> 
> 1)
> RightAws::AwsError in 'VideosController should create a valid Video'
> AWS access keys are required to operate on S3
> /Users/ngw/zooppa-4/app/controllers/videos_controller.rb:6:in `create'
> /Users/ngw/zooppa-4/spec/controllers/videos_controller_spec.rb:17:
> 
> Maybe I missed something ?
> 
> TIA,
>    ngw


hello dear.....

have u got the solution 4 that...then please tell me...

and second one is, from where u get S3 aws_access_key and 
aws_secret_access_key and bucket_base_name .. or from wher to set 
this.........

thanks
replay me on deven.patel at trinitywebtech.com
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Thu Jan 28 23:49:56 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Deven Patel)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:49:56 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing file attachment with Paperclip
In-Reply-To: <998249DD-DBC1-43C7-B3DD-41EDC97CCF88@gmail.com>
References: <998249DD-DBC1-43C7-B3DD-41EDC97CCF88@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <34d4486bd5ae42b9868e5beb103424f1@ruby-forum.com>

Nicholas Wieland wrote:
> Does someone have an example on faking a file upload for just ensuring
> it gets called, without actually uploading the file to s3.
> I thought that stubbing Model.has_attached_file would be enough, but
> it doesn't seem so ...
> 
> This is what I did:
> 
> Video.stub!( :has_attached_file ).with( :name ).and_return( true )
> 
> has_attached_file is from paperclip, it gets mixed to the model.
> 
> 1)
> RightAws::AwsError in 'VideosController should create a valid Video'
> AWS access keys are required to operate on S3
> /Users/ngw/zooppa-4/app/controllers/videos_controller.rb:6:in `create'
> /Users/ngw/zooppa-4/spec/controllers/videos_controller_spec.rb:17:
> 
> Maybe I missed something ?
> 
> TIA,
>    ngw


hello dear.....

have u got the solution 4 that...then please tell me...

and second one is, from where u get S3 aws_access_key and
aws_secret_access_key and bucket_base_name .. or from wher to set
this.........

thanks
replay me on deven.patel at trinitywebtech.com
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Fri Jan 29 06:53:04 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Amit Kulkarni)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:53:04 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] testing controllers using cucumber
Message-ID: <ce0a34da1b223beef424e280828a2622@ruby-forum.com>

Hello,
Is there any way to test controllers using cucumber.
I was doing it with rspec but since cucumber's description is good how
can i proceed testing it with cucumber?
For e.g.
I have a scenario of user creation like
Feature: User Scenarios

  Scenario: Successfull creation of user
    Given a new user
    When the user fill all the mandatory details
    Then that user should get created
    And success message should get displayed and email should be sent
for activation

In step definition:
Given /^a new user$/ do
end

When /^the user fill all the mandatory details$/ do
end

When /^that user should get created$/ do
end

Then /^success message should get displayed and email should be sent for
activation$/ do
end

In this how i need to call the users controller and in that create
method.
Also i searched in the net but didn't found any examples for cucumber
testing controllers.
Please suggest
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From matt-lists at reprocessed.org  Fri Jan 29 07:16:20 2010
From: matt-lists at reprocessed.org (Matt Patterson)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:16:20 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] testing controllers using cucumber
In-Reply-To: <ce0a34da1b223beef424e280828a2622@ruby-forum.com>
References: <ce0a34da1b223beef424e280828a2622@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <2ADC6B7D-E312-49FC-B8A7-20A26582DDED@reprocessed.org>

On 29 Jan 2010, at 11:53, Amit Kulkarni wrote:

> Hello,
> Is there any way to test controllers using cucumber.
> I was doing it with rspec but since cucumber's description is good how
> can i proceed testing it with cucumber?

Hi Amit. There's a Cucumber specific mailing list at http://groups.google.com/group/cukes?pli=1, which is a better place to ask Cucumbetr questions.

With Cucumber, you don't tend to test controllers directly, instead you're testing the whole app, much like Rails' own Integration Tests.

> For e.g.
> I have a scenario of user creation like
> Feature: User Scenarios
> 
>  Scenario: Successfull creation of user
>    Given a new user
>    When the user fill all the mandatory details
>    Then that user should get created
>    And success message should get displayed and email should be sent
> for activation


So, your example might be implemented like this:


Given /^I'm on the new user page$/ do
  visit new_user_path
end

When /^I fill all the mandatory details$/ do
  fill_in("name", :with =>"Joe")
end

Then /^that user should get created$/ do
  User.find_by_name("Joe").should_not be_nil
end

> In this how i need to call the users controller and in that create
> method.
> Also i searched in the net but didn't found any examples for cucumber
> testing controllers.

There are lots of examples on the Cucumber site http://cukes.info/

HTH

Matt

-- 
  Matt Patterson | Design & Code
  <matt at reprocessed org> | http://www.reprocessed.org/




From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jan 30 01:45:25 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:45:25 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] somewhat confused by the help instructions...
In-Reply-To: <2a39e8e4-72b7-4f37-9e1e-f358eebf5d3c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
References: <2a39e8e4-72b7-4f37-9e1e-f358eebf5d3c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001292245o21772b63h843b7ea6d4b79d47@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:54 PM, rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
> As a note of feedback, when I do a spec --help, I saw this line...
>
> ? ?-e, --example [NAME|FILE_NAME] ? Execute example(s) with matching
> name(s). If the argument is
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? the path to an existing file
> (typically generated by a previous
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? run using --format
> failing_examples:file.txt), then the examples
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? on each line of that file will be
> executed. If the file is empty,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? all examples will be run (as if --
> example was not specified).
>
> so I, trying to be clever, passed it something to match:
>
> E:\dev\ruby\spork>spec spec/spork/run_strategy/single* -e"the result"
>
>
> Finished in 0.125 seconds
>
> 0 examples, 0 failures
>
>
> Passing it the full test name seems to work, however:
>
> E:\dev\ruby\spork>spec spec/spork/run_strategy/single* -e"returns the
> result of the run_tests method from the forked child"
> ...
>
> Finished in 0.34375 seconds
>
> 3 examples, 0 failures
>
>
> Suggestion:
>
> rephrase the help as "runs the test whose name equals the one
> specified" (instead of using the word "matches" which to me somehow
> meant "regex"), or
>
> change the matching to be regex matching (this one is what I would
> personally prefer--then you don't have to put full test names on the
> command line).
>
> Thoughts?

Actually, I'm thinking of not supporting this in rspec-2. I personally
find the line number much more useful, since you can just copy it
directly from the failure messages to re-run something:

spec path/to/spec.rb:37

WDYT?

> -r
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From matt-lists at reprocessed.org  Sat Jan 30 04:50:33 2010
From: matt-lists at reprocessed.org (Matt Patterson)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:50:33 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] Can I set an expectation that a method invokes
	super?
In-Reply-To: <deb2337a1001280949y42d5606ei2cf32ada3d293840@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deb2337a1001280949y42d5606ei2cf32ada3d293840@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C2D0804A-D9F2-497F-9680-5084E2FEE48B@reprocessed.org>

On 28 Jan 2010, at 17:49, Rick DeNatale wrote:

> Not sure if I can easily do this
> 
> Just ran into a bug in a rails app where ApplicationController
> overrides rescue_action_in_public leading to the error page not being
> displayed.
> 
> The fix was to call super at the end of the method.
> 
> I'd like to write a spec to ensure that this doesn't regress, but my
> imagination is failing me as to how to do it.

Two thoughts, one not very helpful, the other hopefully more so.

My approach with this area has been to ignore the mechanics of error catching in controllers, to steer clear of rescue_action_in_public in apps - using rescue_from instead - and using a custom matcher to check that particular controllers declare that they rescue particular errors. To ensure that, in practice, the right stuff happens I use Cucumber to check that in a 404 type situation the right stuff happens across the whole stack.

HTH

Matt


-- 
  Matt Patterson | Design & Code
  <matt at reprocessed org> | http://www.reprocessed.org/




From matt at mattwynne.net  Sat Jan 30 08:31:20 2010
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:31:20 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] somewhat confused by the help instructions...
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001292245o21772b63h843b7ea6d4b79d47@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2a39e8e4-72b7-4f37-9e1e-f358eebf5d3c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe1001292245o21772b63h843b7ea6d4b79d47@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ECCEE065-8784-45EB-9E46-E0F3FB977571@mattwynne.net>


On 30 Jan 2010, at 06:45, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:54 PM, rogerdpack  
> <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As a note of feedback, when I do a spec --help, I saw this line...
>>
>>    -e, --example [NAME|FILE_NAME]   Execute example(s) with matching
>> name(s). If the argument is
>>                                     the path to an existing file
>> (typically generated by a previous
>>                                     run using --format
>> failing_examples:file.txt), then the examples
>>                                     on each line of that file will be
>> executed. If the file is empty,
>>                                     all examples will be run (as if  
>> --
>> example was not specified).
>>
>> so I, trying to be clever, passed it something to match:
>>
>> E:\dev\ruby\spork>spec spec/spork/run_strategy/single* -e"the result"
>>
>>
>> Finished in 0.125 seconds
>>
>> 0 examples, 0 failures
>>
>>
>> Passing it the full test name seems to work, however:
>>
>> E:\dev\ruby\spork>spec spec/spork/run_strategy/single* -e"returns the
>> result of the run_tests method from the forked child"
>> ...
>>
>> Finished in 0.34375 seconds
>>
>> 3 examples, 0 failures
>>
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> rephrase the help as "runs the test whose name equals the one
>> specified" (instead of using the word "matches" which to me somehow
>> meant "regex"), or
>>
>> change the matching to be regex matching (this one is what I would
>> personally prefer--then you don't have to put full test names on the
>> command line).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Actually, I'm thinking of not supporting this in rspec-2. I personally
> find the line number much more useful, since you can just copy it
> directly from the failure messages to re-run something:
>
> spec path/to/spec.rb:37

This is great except when you use macros or other tricks to generate  
examples - then there isn't a 1:1: mapping from line number to  
example. I often find it quite annoying to have to quote the whole  
example description, so I actually quite like Roger's idea about using  
regexp matching.

> WDYT?
>
>> -r
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

cheers,
Matt

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jan 30 09:38:59 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:38:59 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] somewhat confused by the help instructions...
In-Reply-To: <ECCEE065-8784-45EB-9E46-E0F3FB977571@mattwynne.net>
References: <2a39e8e4-72b7-4f37-9e1e-f358eebf5d3c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe1001292245o21772b63h843b7ea6d4b79d47@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECCEE065-8784-45EB-9E46-E0F3FB977571@mattwynne.net>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001300638h15cc15eai8c97d15634197ec3@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net> wrote:
>
> On 30 Jan 2010, at 06:45, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:54 PM, rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As a note of feedback, when I do a spec --help, I saw this line...
>>>
>>> ? -e, --example [NAME|FILE_NAME] ? Execute example(s) with matching
>>> name(s). If the argument is
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?the path to an existing file
>>> (typically generated by a previous
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?run using --format
>>> failing_examples:file.txt), then the examples
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?on each line of that file will be
>>> executed. If the file is empty,
>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?all examples will be run (as if --
>>> example was not specified).
>>>
>>> so I, trying to be clever, passed it something to match:
>>>
>>> E:\dev\ruby\spork>spec spec/spork/run_strategy/single* -e"the result"
>>>
>>>
>>> Finished in 0.125 seconds
>>>
>>> 0 examples, 0 failures
>>>
>>>
>>> Passing it the full test name seems to work, however:
>>>
>>> E:\dev\ruby\spork>spec spec/spork/run_strategy/single* -e"returns the
>>> result of the run_tests method from the forked child"
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Finished in 0.34375 seconds
>>>
>>> 3 examples, 0 failures
>>>
>>>
>>> Suggestion:
>>>
>>> rephrase the help as "runs the test whose name equals the one
>>> specified" (instead of using the word "matches" which to me somehow
>>> meant "regex"), or
>>>
>>> change the matching to be regex matching (this one is what I would
>>> personally prefer--then you don't have to put full test names on the
>>> command line).
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Actually, I'm thinking of not supporting this in rspec-2. I personally
>> find the line number much more useful, since you can just copy it
>> directly from the failure messages to re-run something:
>>
>> spec path/to/spec.rb:37
>
> This is great except when you use macros or other tricks to generate
> examples - then there isn't a 1:1: mapping from line number to example. I
> often find it quite annoying to have to quote the whole example description,
> so I actually quite like Roger's idea about using regexp matching.

Excellent news for you both. It turns out that the underlying
machinery is already in place for this in rspec2's new runner. Just
need to hook it to the command line. But right now, in
rspec-core-2.0.0.a2, you can say this in any Ruby that gets loaded
(like spec_helper.rb):

Rspec::Core.configure do |c|
  c.filter_run :description => /should match this string/
end

Hooking that from the CLI will be pretty simple, so coming soon.

Cheers,
David

>
>> WDYT?
>>
>>> -r
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> cheers,
> Matt
>
> http://mattwynne.net
> +447974 430184
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Sat Jan 30 10:35:09 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Ravi Shankar)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:35:09 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Why we use RSpec
Message-ID: <519191666db4f509513b1157cfc0f5e8@ruby-forum.com>

Hi all,

I am new to the RSpec, I have many questions related to the RSpec.


1. Why one should use RSpec instead of other testing technique
2. Which are the best tools than RSpec
3. Where can i get RSpec demo
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From tristam29 at gmail.com  Sun Jan 31 10:30:54 2010
From: tristam29 at gmail.com (Tristam29)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:30:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [rspec-users] Why we use RSpec
In-Reply-To: <519191666db4f509513b1157cfc0f5e8@ruby-forum.com>
References: <519191666db4f509513b1157cfc0f5e8@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <7497627f-8243-40b4-9f01-f849d695c08a@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>

On Jan 30, 10:35?am, Ravi Shankar <li... at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am new to the RSpec, I have many questions related to the RSpec.
>
> 1. Why one should use RSpec instead of other testing technique

RSpec is designed for Behavior Driven Development, whereas many
testing tools are designed for Test Driven Development or even post-
development testing.  So basically, your question could be rephrased
as "What are the benefits of Behavior Driven Development?"  Here are a
few places to look for more introductory material:

http://behaviour-driven.org/Introduction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior_Driven_Development

> 2. Which are the best tools than RSpec

Many people use RSpec with Cucumber.  In fact, the RSpec book (linked
below) talks about how to use both of them for effective behavior
driven development.  It's important to remember that tools cannot be
measured on an abstract, absolute scale.  (i.e. There is no *best*
tool because some tools were designed to do different things.)  RSpec
is often compared to Ruby's built-in unit testing framework
(Test::Unit), and many people like the shoulda macros that work with
either RSpec or Test::Unit.

RSpec book:  http://www.pragprog.com/titles/achbd/the-rspec-book

Test::Unit: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ruby_Programming/Unit_testing

Shoulda macros: http://github.com/thoughtbot/shoulda

> 3. Where can i get RSpec demo

There are several demos available online.  Here's a demo that shows
RSpec, Test::Unit, and Cucumber using Ruby on Rails:
http://github.com/marcoow/rspec-demo

There's also a lengthy introduction to RSpec available on PeepCode:
http://peepcode.com/products/rspec-basics

I hope that helps!

> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Sun Jan 31 12:13:53 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Ravi Shankar)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:13:53 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] What is difference between TDD & BDD
In-Reply-To: <519191666db4f509513b1157cfc0f5e8@ruby-forum.com>
References: <519191666db4f509513b1157cfc0f5e8@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <f33231fd50121fa96027cfd4f1c504d9@ruby-forum.com>

What is the difference between test driven development & behavior driven 
development, which one is better.

what are the options available in BDD.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk  Sun Jan 31 12:48:17 2010
From: ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:48:17 +0000
Subject: [rspec-users] What is difference between TDD & BDD
In-Reply-To: <f33231fd50121fa96027cfd4f1c504d9@ruby-forum.com>
References: <519191666db4f509513b1157cfc0f5e8@ruby-forum.com>
	<f33231fd50121fa96027cfd4f1c504d9@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <1DA05DD1-F715-4DC3-8A71-59E2A46E1C11@patchspace.co.uk>


On Jan 31, 2010, at 5:13 pm, Ravi Shankar wrote:

> What is the difference between test driven development & behavior driven 
> development, which one is better.

The link to behaviour-driven.org that Tristam already posted[1] tells you exactly that.  Did you read it?

I'm having flashbacks to an older thread here :-/


> what are the options available in BDD.

Your question is not clear.  Can you be more specific?


Ashley


[1] http://behaviour-driven.org/Introduction

-- 
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran


From cwdinfo at gmail.com  Sun Jan 31 14:02:53 2010
From: cwdinfo at gmail.com (steve ross)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:02:53 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] What is difference between TDD & BDD
In-Reply-To: <f33231fd50121fa96027cfd4f1c504d9@ruby-forum.com>
References: <519191666db4f509513b1157cfc0f5e8@ruby-forum.com>
	<f33231fd50121fa96027cfd4f1c504d9@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <8CFE4A19-69CB-469A-8FBF-9B4FD60A6151@gmail.com>

On Jan 31, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Ravi Shankar wrote:
> 
> What is the difference between test driven development & behavior driven 
> development, which one is better.
> 
> what are the options available in BDD.

Make up a simple project like a blog that you can do in couple of hours. Try it using one, then the other technology. See which you like better. Your research will be the ultimate arbiter of which is better for you and your project. Nobody can tell you which will feel more natural to you.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jan 31 15:51:27 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:51:27 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] somewhat confused by the help instructions...
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001300638h15cc15eai8c97d15634197ec3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2a39e8e4-72b7-4f37-9e1e-f358eebf5d3c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe1001292245o21772b63h843b7ea6d4b79d47@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECCEE065-8784-45EB-9E46-E0F3FB977571@mattwynne.net>
	<57c63afe1001300638h15cc15eai8c97d15634197ec3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001311251i67a56d6am8bf1c32d1604b833@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:38 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Jan 2010, at 06:45, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:54 PM, rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As a note of feedback, when I do a spec --help, I saw this line...
>>>>
>>>> ? -e, --example [NAME|FILE_NAME] ? Execute example(s) with matching
>>>> name(s). If the argument is
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?the path to an existing file
>>>> (typically generated by a previous
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?run using --format
>>>> failing_examples:file.txt), then the examples
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?on each line of that file will be
>>>> executed. If the file is empty,
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?all examples will be run (as if --
>>>> example was not specified).
>>>>
>>>> so I, trying to be clever, passed it something to match:
>>>>
>>>> E:\dev\ruby\spork>spec spec/spork/run_strategy/single* -e"the result"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Finished in 0.125 seconds
>>>>
>>>> 0 examples, 0 failures
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Passing it the full test name seems to work, however:
>>>>
>>>> E:\dev\ruby\spork>spec spec/spork/run_strategy/single* -e"returns the
>>>> result of the run_tests method from the forked child"
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Finished in 0.34375 seconds
>>>>
>>>> 3 examples, 0 failures
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Suggestion:
>>>>
>>>> rephrase the help as "runs the test whose name equals the one
>>>> specified" (instead of using the word "matches" which to me somehow
>>>> meant "regex"), or
>>>>
>>>> change the matching to be regex matching (this one is what I would
>>>> personally prefer--then you don't have to put full test names on the
>>>> command line).
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Actually, I'm thinking of not supporting this in rspec-2. I personally
>>> find the line number much more useful, since you can just copy it
>>> directly from the failure messages to re-run something:
>>>
>>> spec path/to/spec.rb:37
>>
>> This is great except when you use macros or other tricks to generate
>> examples - then there isn't a 1:1: mapping from line number to example. I
>> often find it quite annoying to have to quote the whole example description,
>> so I actually quite like Roger's idea about using regexp matching.
>
> Excellent news for you both. It turns out that the underlying
> machinery is already in place for this in rspec2's new runner. Just
> need to hook it to the command line. But right now, in
> rspec-core-2.0.0.a2, you can say this in any Ruby that gets loaded
> (like spec_helper.rb):
>
> Rspec::Core.configure do |c|
> ?c.filter_run :description => /should match this string/
> end
>
> Hooking that from the CLI will be pretty simple, so coming soon.

Done:

http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/master/features/command_line/example_name_option.feature

>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>>> -r
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> cheers,
>> Matt
>>
>> http://mattwynne.net
>> +447974 430184
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Sun Jan 31 16:55:45 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:55:45 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] somewhat confused by the help instructions...
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe1001311251i67a56d6am8bf1c32d1604b833@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2a39e8e4-72b7-4f37-9e1e-f358eebf5d3c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>	<57c63afe1001292245o21772b63h843b7ea6d4b79d47@mail.gmail.com>	<ECCEE065-8784-45EB-9E46-E0F3FB977571@mattwynne.net>	<57c63afe1001300638h15cc15eai8c97d15634197ec3@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001311251i67a56d6am8bf1c32d1604b833@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B65FC61.6080209@gmail.com>



David Chelimsky wrote:
> Done:
> http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/master/features/command_line/example_name_option.feature
>
>    

Cool stuff!

Does that match the describe groups as well? I would like to be able to 
run all of the examples in either "first group" or "second group". Will 
it match?

Phillip

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Sun Jan 31 17:02:05 2010
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nick Hoffman)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:02:05 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] GET a path in a controller spec
Message-ID: <c5e27d61d980be8b4e89153c51aaae66@ruby-forum.com>

One of my controller actions sends a redirect if the request URI begins
with /foods/search

  34  def search
  35    return redirect_to "/#{params[:name]}" if
request.request_uri.match /^\/foods\/search/

Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to spec this.

>From everything that I've read while researching this problem, it seems
that #get and #post only accept the action to call, and a hash of
parameters. IE:
  get :action, :some => 'param'
As a result, I can't do this:
  121  it 'redirects /foods/search/almonds to /almonds' do
  122    get '/foods/search/almonds'
  123    response.should redirect_to "/almonds"
  124  end

How can I spec this?

Thanks for your help,
Nick
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Sun Jan 31 17:21:57 2010
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:21:57 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] somewhat confused by the help instructions...
In-Reply-To: <4B65FC61.6080209@gmail.com>
References: <2a39e8e4-72b7-4f37-9e1e-f358eebf5d3c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe1001292245o21772b63h843b7ea6d4b79d47@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECCEE065-8784-45EB-9E46-E0F3FB977571@mattwynne.net>
	<57c63afe1001300638h15cc15eai8c97d15634197ec3@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001311251i67a56d6am8bf1c32d1604b833@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B65FC61.6080209@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deb2337a1001311421p7031df15l71f9a2921ea7ae37@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Phillip Koebbe <phillipkoebbe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>> Done:
>>
>> http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/master/features/command_line/example_name_option.feature
>>
>>
>
> Cool stuff!
>
> Does that match the describe groups as well? I would like to be able to run
> all of the examples in either "first group" or "second group". Will it
> match?

Also, does anyone but me find the expectation in the case where
there's no match surprising?

-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jan 31 17:58:26 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:58:26 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] somewhat confused by the help instructions...
In-Reply-To: <4B65FC61.6080209@gmail.com>
References: <2a39e8e4-72b7-4f37-9e1e-f358eebf5d3c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe1001292245o21772b63h843b7ea6d4b79d47@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECCEE065-8784-45EB-9E46-E0F3FB977571@mattwynne.net>
	<57c63afe1001300638h15cc15eai8c97d15634197ec3@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001311251i67a56d6am8bf1c32d1604b833@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B65FC61.6080209@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001311458w11673dcave38d1eac92da5aab@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Phillip Koebbe <phillipkoebbe at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>> Done:
>>
>> http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/master/features/command_line/example_name_option.feature
>
> Cool stuff!
>
> Does that match the describe groups as well? I would like to be able to run
> all of the examples in either "first group" or "second group". Will it
> match?

Yes. I added some narrative text to explain:
http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/master/features/command_line/example_name_option.feature

From phillipkoebbe at gmail.com  Sun Jan 31 18:28:36 2010
From: phillipkoebbe at gmail.com (Phillip Koebbe)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:28:36 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] somewhat confused by the help instructions...
In-Reply-To: <deb2337a1001311421p7031df15l71f9a2921ea7ae37@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2a39e8e4-72b7-4f37-9e1e-f358eebf5d3c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>	<57c63afe1001292245o21772b63h843b7ea6d4b79d47@mail.gmail.com>	<ECCEE065-8784-45EB-9E46-E0F3FB977571@mattwynne.net>	<57c63afe1001300638h15cc15eai8c97d15634197ec3@mail.gmail.com>	<57c63afe1001311251i67a56d6am8bf1c32d1604b833@mail.gmail.com>	<4B65FC61.6080209@gmail.com>
	<deb2337a1001311421p7031df15l71f9a2921ea7ae37@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B661224.6060002@gmail.com>



Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Phillip Koebbe<phillipkoebbe at gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>      
>>> Done:
>>>
>>> http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/master/features/command_line/example_name_option.feature
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> Cool stuff!
>>
>> Does that match the describe groups as well? I would like to be able to run
>> all of the examples in either "first group" or "second group". Will it
>> match?
>>      
>
> Also, does anyone but me find the expectation in the case where
> there's no match surprising?
>
>    

I thought about that, as well. I would expect nothing to be done if no 
match was found. Consider the case of misspelling the example or group 
and having the whole shebang run instead of nothing.

Peace,
Phillip

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jan 31 21:08:23 2010
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:08:23 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] somewhat confused by the help instructions...
In-Reply-To: <4B661224.6060002@gmail.com>
References: <2a39e8e4-72b7-4f37-9e1e-f358eebf5d3c@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe1001292245o21772b63h843b7ea6d4b79d47@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECCEE065-8784-45EB-9E46-E0F3FB977571@mattwynne.net>
	<57c63afe1001300638h15cc15eai8c97d15634197ec3@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe1001311251i67a56d6am8bf1c32d1604b833@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B65FC61.6080209@gmail.com>
	<deb2337a1001311421p7031df15l71f9a2921ea7ae37@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B661224.6060002@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe1001311808x7086cfefr3b1abe569a7150cf@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Phillip Koebbe <phillipkoebbe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rick DeNatale wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Phillip Koebbe<phillipkoebbe at gmail.com>
>> ?wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Done:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/master/features/command_line/example_name_option.feature
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cool stuff!
>>>
>>> Does that match the describe groups as well? I would like to be able to
>>> run
>>> all of the examples in either "first group" or "second group". Will it
>>> match?
>>>
>>
>> Also, does anyone but me find the expectation in the case where
>> there's no match surprising?
>>
>>
>
> I thought about that, as well. I would expect nothing to be done if no match
> was found. Consider the case of misspelling the example or group and having
> the whole shebang run instead of nothing.

Agreed:

http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/master/features/command_line/example_name_option.feature

>
> Peace,
> Phillip