Rails - Oct 2006 - Radrails and RSpec

Hi all,

Does anyone know how to get radrails to use RSpec specs instead of tests?

Cheers


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Daniel,

   > Does anyone know how to get radrails to use RSpec specs instead of
tests?

Give a try to the simply_bdd plugin.
   http://svn.techno-weenie.net/projects/plugins/simply_bdd/README

It makes using RSpec a lot easier: you run rspec code like normal
tests (see the example in the README page), and it works fine with
autotest.

Not shown in the README example is the need to use
    require ''spec''
to access the should_** magic.


Example:

file: test/unit/a_user_test.rb
  require File.dirname(__FILE__) + ''/../test_helper''
  require ''spec''

  context "A User with no name" do
     def setup
       @user = User.new
     end

     specify "should be invalid" do
       # assert !@user.valid?        # std way
       @user.should_not_be_valid # rspec way
     end
  end


Alain

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

"It makes using RSpec a lot easier"

Its best not to confuse Rick''s plugin with RSpec - they aren''t
the same
and whilst simply bdd is neat, it doesn''t give you the full power of
RSpec (such as the should_ expectations).


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

ljredp...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:
> "It makes using RSpec a lot easier"
>
> Its best not to confuse Rick''s plugin with RSpec - they
aren''t the same
> and whilst simply bdd is neat, it doesn''t give you the full power
of
> RSpec (such as the should_ expectations).
Scratch that, didn''t read the above post properly.

If you want to use RadRails though, can''t you still just use the
console to run your tests?


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

> Its best not to confuse Rick''s plugin with RSpec - they
aren''t the same
  > and whilst simply bdd is neat, it doesn''t give you the full
power of
  > RSpec (such as the should_ expectations).

Read my msg again, and the example I gave: it uses a should_* expectation.

Alain

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 10/26/06, Alain Ravet
<alain.ravet-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>
>
>   > Its best not to confuse Rick''s plugin with RSpec - they
aren''t the
> same
>   > and whilst simply bdd is neat, it doesn''t give you the full
power of
>   > RSpec (such as the should_ expectations).
>
> Read my msg again, and the example I gave: it uses a should_* expectation.
>
> Alain

Thanx for the insight.  I''ve been using simply_bdd for this but
didn''t even
think to require spec.

I''m not sure that I understand exactly what''s happening here
though.  If I
require spec, which context method is being called?  simply_bdd or rpsec?
Does it make a difference?

Luke, I can use consle for testing, but I rather use it in RadRails when
I''m
developing there.

I guess bdd just reasonates with me, and I''d like to use it.  It seems
that
requiring spec in the test files would give me the best of both worlds.  I
can use the should_** methods and normal assert* methods.

Thanx again for the pointers.

Cheers
Daniel


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---