[rspec-users] Patch idea for rspec_on_rails

Russell Norris
2007-10-19T20:46:17Z

I can see the good in simplicity there. I just liked the ability to
say Foo.has_many(:bars).through(:foobars) in such a readable way. I
did write methodology for a more terse listing of the options as
Foo.has_many(:bars).with_options(:through => :bars) etc.

RSL

On 10/19/07, Jerrett Taylor <jerrett at bravenet.com>
wrote:
> We have a similar one, which works like:
>
>
> Foo.should have_association(:has_many, :conditions => "stuff",
:through
> => :bazes)
>
> we started off with should have_many  etc, but it became overcomplicated
> with all the various things that you may want - so we changed to
> have_association to make it simpler and ensure it will work with any/all
> association options
>
> http://pastie.caboo.se/108976
>
>
>
>
>
> Russell Norris wrote:
> > I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows
> > you to specify things like:
> >
> >     Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes)
> >
> > I''m pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have
suggested
> > that I should submit it to the rspec_on_rails project. Before I go to
> > the trouble of writing out rdoc and fully spec''ing it, I just
wanted
> > to make sure this was something the community would like.
> >
> > Instead of pasting in the code into the email, I thought I''d
just make
> > a pastie and let those interested read it there:
> > http://pastie.caboo.se/108922
> >
> > I think it would make a nice addition to the current Rails matchers.
> > Here''s hoping you do too.
> >
> > RSL
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >