similar to: Patch idea for rspec_on_rails

This is pretty much the same as last time around, if you recall. Thanks to Wilson for converting to the new form. I''ve added a few lines. Basically, it iterates over your model associations and does two things. - First, just try to call the association. Usually fixes speeling erors or other such silliness. - Second, try to find a record with an :include on the association. This

i''m having problem with a form_for situation where i''m trying to DRY out the repeated parts of my forms and put them in common/form and render the form elements via another partial in controller_name/_form. Here''s the first form # app/views/common/form <% form_for ... do |f| -%> <%= render :partial => "params[:controller]/form", :object => f

Hey, we''re currently using shoulda (http://dev.thoughtbot.com/ shoulda/) on a project and I saw some things that would be really nice to see in rspec, namely the should_ methods, and especially the should_be_restful method. Do these go against the rspec goals at all? Or could an ambitious programmer go to town implementing these for rspec_on_rails? Nathan Sutton fowlduck at

Hey does anyone know of a good open source Rails project that uses RSpec? I''d like to check out some real world code that''s drinking the RSpec BDD koolaid. Thanks. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To

On 5/28/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote: > The behaviour you''re trying to describe is that the User should > require that passwords bear certain qualities - in this case a length > between 5 and 40. So you need to ask yourself how the User should > behave when this requirement is violated, and then specify that it > behaves that way. > >

>Comment By: Luis Lavena (luislavena) > Date: 2007-05-04 23:37 > describe "An Asset" do > before(:each) do > @asset = Asset.new > end > > it { @asset.should have_one(:attachment) } > it { @asset.should have_present(:something) } > end Food for thought on these. I like have_one a lot. It speaks to me as a Rails developer and I think it speaks to

I think we all know that the readability of steps isn''t great right now, and in fact there''s a very recent thread that discusses just that. It was that recent thread that prompted me to explore this a bit. The basic idea is that you define step matchers, which have a regex, and then you match step names against that regex. Kind of tough for me to explain so I''ll just

Hello RSpec users, Have been using RSpec since 0.8.2 (not too long ago, I must say). and been creating my custom matchers since was defined as "good practice". Also, auto-generated names for the examples is very helpful, I''m trying to take advantage of it. Since I often prior code/define all the "examples", I have created a few matchers to fulfill associations and

Hi, Anyone can help me with rspec shoulda validations please. I can''t get the syntax right for these validations. Please correct me it { should have_one :tradable, :through => :trade_order} it { should belong_to :source, :polymorphic => true } it { should have_many :transfers, :as => :source } this is for Rspec 2, rails 3.1, gem "rspec-rails" gem

Hi all, I feel like I''m missing something really easy and I''m just not seeing it. I''m using the restful_authentication plugin and have a User model. Uesr has_many :things and Thing belongs_to :user. That''s it. I did a "script/generate rspec_scaffold thing" to generate all the necessary bits. The "rake db:migrate" to create the db. At

Having some weird failures of rescue_from in all my specs. They still rescue in actual usage, just not in my specs. Made a pastie of the code: http://pastie.org/257399 This is with latest [as of 1:00 PM Eastern time zone] rspec/rspec-rails/edge. Thanks in advance for any replies on this. RSL -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

I had posted this on the regular Rails list, but upon trying this in script/console, it seems like the behavior only exists when running rspec. I''m getting some weird behavior in one of my models. I have a model defined something like this class User < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessor :password validates_presence_of :password end If I validate the model without specifying a

I can''t get my plain text stories to show pending actions like the example addition plain text story. Any tips? (See below) http://pastie.caboo.se/119627 Nathan Sutton fowlduck at gmail.com rspec edge revision 2910 rspec_on_rails edge revision 2909 rails edge revision 8167

Hi, I have two models in an app that inherit from ActiveResource::Base. The scaffold controller tests for one of the models works fine, but the other one dies when calling mock_model in the "handling GET /fa_codes" spec: Specifically, the call to mock model here: before do @fa_code = mock_model(FaCode) FaCode.stub!(:find).and_return([@fa_code]) end generates this failure:

hi everyone, I''ve this code in my Report model: has_many :report_reasons, :validate => true has_many :reasons, :through => :report_reasons #, :uniq => true # :accessible => true def reason_attributes=(reason_attributes) reasons.clear reason_attributes.uniq.each do |reason| reasons << Reason.find_or_create_by_content(reason) end end

Just upgraded to latest rails and rspec builds and my autotest doesnt work undefined method `before'' for Spec::Rails::DSL::RailsExample:Class (NoMethodError) Here''s the full trace: http://pastie.caboo.se/112754 Any ideas? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Is anyone else using liquid with the > 1 rspec? This seems to fail: it ''should render show'' do response.should render_template(''buyers/show'') get :show, :id => 1 end with an error like 1) NoMethodError in ''/buyer GET should render show'' You have a nil object when you didn''t expect it! The error occurred

i am trying out minitest, but need some advice on a clean way to test validations. I setup my testing to use minitest by following the following railscast plus i added miniskirt for Factories. http://railscasts.com/episodes/327-minitest-with-rails everything works well, but there has to be a cleaner way of testing failed validations. would i be better off using something besides

> On 5/5/07, Luis Lavena <luislavena at gmail.com> wrote: > > describe "A User (in general)" do > > before(:each) do > > @user = User.new > > end > > > > it { @user.should have_many(:contest_public_votes) } > > it { @user.should have_many(:design_industry_user_interests) } > > it { @user.should

Hello! I''m just a caveman with some caveman questions. I''ve been parsing Rspec for quite a while, and I''m writing my first series of specs. My initial impressions are "Verbose, but understandable. Helpful and intuitive, but so much to digest." I want to congratulate the folks who are dedicating a chunk of their lives to writing this, and ask 2 caveman