similar to: having should_receive expectation for things that happen in setup

Hi! I just started using RSpec and have some question that I couldn''t find answers to. If I have a result that can have two valid values, is there a better way of writing the following assertion? [value1,value2].should_include actual Is there a more elegant way of performing should_satisfy on a collection, for example I currently use something like collection.each {|x|

Hi! It seems that migration doesn''t use single transcation to execute the needed migrations for the database upgrade, so if I have database at version 5, and I wrote some migrations 6..10, and error occurs while executing migration 7, the database stays in state 6? I also think that migration taks could use some more verbosity, for example if migration fails, there''s no

Hi! Is there an option that I could provide to the spec runner that would make it stop after it encounters the first spec that fails? Esad

Hi! I''m using Migration to define my database schema and these "ALTER TABLE t ADD FOREIGN KEY..." look really ugly - that''s why I wanted to ask it would be possible to simply add add_foreign_key method to ActiveRecord? Are there any reasons this isn''t yet implemented? Greetings, Esad -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Hi! Is there a nicer way of writing File.should be_exist(''filename'')? File.should exist(''foo'') throws NoMethodError in ''specification'' undefined method `exist'' for #<#<Class:0x3ec1c30>:0x3ebc308> (I''m using rspec from the trunk) Esad

Hello rspec-users, I''ve encountered a strange bug in rspec, but it may be me who is wrong. I''m running latest version from the trunk (r1678) of both rspec and rspec_on_rails. Please consider the following model: class Url < ActiveRecord::Base def after_save Contact.create!(:primary_email => ''user at example.com'') raise

Would it make sense for rake db:migrate to support creating databases if it is not found, with blessing from user to prevent typos, or as an additional command line switch. Or am I just being too lazy? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Hi! I''m thinking of implementing datagrid like functionality for showing data (models) in grids so that I don''t have to re-invent the view/controller for each table I need. There are number of parameters that need to be customizable: column titles, row style depending on the data (i.e. showing all rows with balance<0 in red), is column sortable, sort-algorithm etc. To

Hi! Is it possible to render the action within the after_filter method, or is the rendering performed before? I have something like this: class FooController after_filter :send def a @content=... end def b @content=.. end protected def send send_data(@content,...) end end However, when calling the action a or b, the @content doesn''t get sent, but instead

Hi! I''m writing a datagrid plugin and would like to render the datagrid using a .rhtml template. However, I''d like to avoid placing this template in app/views/shared, but it should reside somewhere within vendor/plugins/datagrid/... Any ideas? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

I am a bit of a rails and rspec noob. I am trying to use rspec in conjunction with CruiseControlrb. When I run a cruise build having spec errors, the build does not indicate a failure. I have tried to track down why this is the case, and my best guess is that the spec task is kicking off the spec via a ruby() method in rake, and that ruby method does not propagate my spec failure back to

Hello, I''m wondering If I am missing something here when creating an example that sets an expecation at the top or beginning of an action but requires you to stub / mock everything that follows. Example: I want to test that a certain controller is running a before_filter...thats easy: - controller.should_receive(:require_user) - do_get But now i''ve got to mock / stub

What do you guys think of this: if someone calls should_receive outside of an "it" block, it warns you. before(:each) do @foo = Foo.new @foo.should_receive(:monkeys) end would warn you that you''re setting an expectation in the wrong place, and that "stub" is correct when setting up objects. Opinions? courtenay

Hi all, I have a method calling Klass.create! two times with different arguments (this happens in a class reponsable for reading in a csv file) I want to test those like this: in one test: Klass.should_receive(:create!).with(:name => "foo").once in another: Klass.should_receive(:create!).with(:name => "foo2").once This doesn''t work because the

Hey, I just ran into a situation where I would like to expect a method call with an argument I know and another one, which is a random number. I think mocking up the rand method is somehow ugly so I thought maybe this is the first time where I can take something from Java to Ruby ;) Java''s EasyMock mocking library knows things like "anyObject()" and "anyInteger()" in

I''m trying to specify that a particular view must render two different partials. My spec looks like: describe AClass do it do template.should_receive(:render).with(:partial => ''foo'', :locals => { ... }) ... end describe ''some conditional case'' do it do template.should_receive(:render).with(:partial =>

Hi, It appears that if I have 2 should_receives in a row, the latest one overrides the previous one(s). If there isn''t one, could we add a way to accumulate them, such as @thing.should_receive(:method).and_return(@value) @thing.should_receive(:method).again.and_return(@value) @thing.should_receive(:method).again.and_return(@value) would be equivalent to

Hey Guys, I''m trying to mock the Rails Logger for the following code: ... rescue TimeoutError => error $logger.error("#{self.name} Timeout for #{path}: #{error}") and return rescue SocketError => error $logger.error("#{self.name} SocketError for #{path}: #{error}") and return rescue StandardError => error

Hey Guys, I''m trying to mock the Rails Logger for the following code: ... rescue TimeoutError => error $logger.error("#{self.name} Timeout for #{path}: #{error}") and return rescue SocketError => error $logger.error("#{self.name} SocketError for #{path}: #{error}") and return rescue StandardError => error

I use: STDOUT.should_receive(:puts).with...... many times in RSPEC However, I have a couple of "do you want(Y/N)?" where I use ''print'' and apparently ..(:print).with... does not work. I can change ''print'' to ''puts'' and it works perfectly. How do I test :print and ...getch("y") for input??? Any help would be