similar to: "should_not ==" vs "should !="

Hello Guys, Doing conversion of some test for some controllers, still with integrated views. Anyway, I have this: it "should not see Join This Group button on profile page as member" do get "show", :id => @group.id response.should be_success response.should_not have_text(/Join This Group/) end But running with spec (0.9.4), drop me the folling error:

Hey, May be it is just too deep night over here and I''m missing something though I got this failure on {{{response.should_not redirect_to}}}: ''QueuesController should allow authenticated user to access ''show'''' FAILED Matcher does not support should_not. See Spec::Matchers for more information about matchers. Also I''ve found this in

Here is the code in question: describe UsersController do render_views … … describe "POST to ''create'' action" do describe "failure" do before(:each) do @attr = { :name => '''', :email => '''', :password => '''', :password_confirmation =>

We''d like to get some feedback on RSpec 0.9 before we start pushing out releases via Rubyforge''s gem server and update the website. We have therefore made the first beta of 0.9 available - both prepackaged and tagged in subversion (see below). RSpec 0.9 introduces a new API for expectations, which essentially means that your underscores go away (there has been other discussions

Currently in R, constructing a string containing values of variables is done using 'paste' and can be an error-prone and traumatic experience. For example, when constructing a db query we have to write, paste("SELECT " value " FROM table where date ='",cdate,"'") we are getting null result from it, because without (forgotten...)

So, it seems there are enough people on the plus side, I just wanted to make sure we evaluate all sides before taking a decision to add syntactic sugar to LLVM assembler. My main concern is still the same as earlier this year: the integrated assembler for ARM is still not complete, and the more extensions we add to the back-end, the harder it'll be to get it into production quality. That

Still new to Specs... How do I create a spec to test a model method? Specifically, here is my spec: #testing model describe User do it "should have many user roles" do User.reflect_on_association(:user_roles).should_not be_nil end it "should have many roles though user roles" do User.reflect_on_association(:roles).should_not be_nil end it "should know

On 25 October 2013 18:33, David Peixotto <dpeixott at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Both armasm and gnu as support an ldr pseudo instruction for loading > constants that lowers to either a mov, movn, or a pc-relative ldr from the > constant pool. It would be great if the llvm integrated assembler could > support this feature as well. > Hi David, As much as I think that it's

This is kind of a two part question. Question One: I want to be sure that an Order model is protecting sensitive attributes from mass assignment. The example looks like this: describe Order do it "should protect total attribute from mass assignment" do @order = Order.new(:total => 0.05) @order.total.should_not == 0.05 end end And the code to implement it: class Order

Hello! I''ve just added a new cool matcher #in into my framework WatirSplash and thought that this could be integrated into RSpec directly actually if there''s any interest. WatirSplash uses Watir (or Watir-like) frameworks for testing web pages via browser. If you''re not familiar with it then here is a short example how you had to test ajax-heavy application before:

Both armasm and gnu as support an ldr pseudo instruction for loading constants that lowers to either a mov, movn, or a pc-relative ldr from the constant pool. It would be great if the llvm integrated assembler could support this feature as well. For example, using gnu as to compile this code: .text foo: ldr r0, =0x1 ldr r0, =-0x1 ldr r0, =0x1000001 ldr r0, =bar

Hi! I just stumbled over a possible bug in 0.7.5.1: `1.should_not_be == 1` does not fail. I took a look into the code and figured out, that this is caused by Not.be() using :no_arg instead of :___no_arg. The expected argument of the method be() in Not is passed from should_not_be() with :___no_arg. Not.be() is marked with "Gone for 0.9", so I assume that "should_not_be =="

Hi All, Recently we have introduced a short syntactic sugar flag for compiling a file with libfuzzer: one just needs to add “-fsanitize=fuzzer” to the command line, and the driver would specify coverage flags and link with libfuzzer automatically. I wanted to ask whether it would make more sense to rename the flag to “-ffuzzer”, as it’s not a sanitizer, and it has a much heavier effect. Thanks,

Hi Renato, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Please find my thoughts below. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 1:11 PM To: David Peixotto Cc: LLVM Dev; Logan Chien; Gabor Ballabas; Rafael Espíndola; Richard Barton; Amara Emerson Subject:

On Oct 25, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > I’m not sure macros are a good analogy, but there are other pseudo-instructions that we’re not always able to reconstruct in disassembled code back to how the user wrote them. Or if we do, it’s purely via heuristic methods. I don’t see this as a big issue. I agree. These pseudo instructions seem like pure

Hi, I keep facing problems with autotest, and I don''t know what''s happening in the background, is there anyway to know what''s happening while testing? Example: @user = User.new @user.email = "testcom" @user.errors.on(:email).should_not be_empty ...throws error failure - You have a nil object when you didn''t expect it! - You might have expected an

Sprinkling my examples with ''lambda'' has always seemed like a bit of a wart to me. I''ve gotten into the habit of adding ''alias :calling :lambda'' to my spec suites. My examples then look like: calling { Foo }.should raise_error calling { Bar }.should_not raise_error Is there a reason that RSpec core has chosen not to make exception expectations more

Sometimes I write code like this: > qf.a <- subset(qf, pubid %in% c(104, 106, 107, 108)) > qf.b <- subset(qf, !pubid %in% c(104, 106, 107, 108)) and I get a little worried that maybe I've remembered the precedence rules wrong, so I change it to > qf.a <- subset(qf, pubid %in% c(104, 106, 107, 108)) > qf.b <- subset(qf, !(pubid %in% c(104, 106, 107, 108))) and pretty

Hi, I''ve tried to find anything about using ''should'' within a Thread, but it is a little hard do look up there, so I hope you forgive-me if I am asking an "old question". I guess this spec should fail: describe Thread do it "must be fine" do Thread.new { true.should_not be_true } # Why don''t fail?! end end It seems that some

Greetings, How to write Example which will check if model''s variable''s format is valid using :on => :create, like this: class User < ActiveRecord::Base ... validates_format_of :email, :with => /.../, :on => :create ... Using following code is not right: it "should ..." do @user = users(:example_user) @user.email =