similar to: hash_excluding/hash_only?

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

-- Sent from my mobile device

Hi -- is there an equivalent to the anything() method to use with Hash parameters? So that the following call: Model.find( :all, :conditions => "name LIKE ''%rt%''", :order => ''name'' ) Could have the two following successful examples: Model.should_receive( :find ).with( :all, { :conditions => "name LIKE ''%rt%", anything }

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

In tracking down a bug in AuthLogic I realized that I had made the same error in one of my libraries. Knowing what the error was made creating a test to expose it (using cucumber) rather trivial. However, it has occurred to me that this sort of issue is far more subtle than I first appreciated. So, I am looking for some opinions on how to test for this sort of thing in a more general sense. At

I expected ''should !='' to act the same as ''should_not ==''. That turned out to be incorrect (by design?): require ''spec'' require ''spec/rails'' describe "using ''should !=''" do it "seems to treat != as the same as ==" do 1.should != 1 # passes 1.should != 2 # fails end end

How can I link to a CSS file in one of my view files? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

A controller I''m trying to test simply delivers a text string to the client, which then demarshalls it to retrieve some objects. I want to test that the returned string is correct. I don''t want to compare the string character-by-character with response.has_text because that ties me to the implementation of the Marshall class. Instead, I just want to demarshall the string

Hey guys, Does anyone have any wisdom to share on the subject of speccing Rails layouts? Most of it''s plain old view specs stuff, but are there sensible ways to verify things like the yield call? (Mocking doesn''t catch that) Thanks, Matt -- Matt Patterson | Design & Code <matt at reprocessed org> | http://www.reprocessed.org/

The following statement gave me "wrong number of arguments (2 for 1)" and it is the only error. no stack trace. presenter.stub!(:account).and_return account any idea? Thanks Yi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20090225/8e667eea/attachment.html>

I''m trying to decide which IDE to go with for RoR development. I put a high premium on integrated test automated tools and debugging capabilities. I''d appreciate any sharing of experience. I''m currently running Instant Rails on a Windows 2000 box (using IR due to problems I encountered trying to get all the components set up individually). Also, I''m using

Here is a very simple spec: -- require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + ''/../spec_helper'') describe Product, "The Product model" do describe "When a new blank product object gets created" do before(:each) do @product = Product.new end it "should not be valid" do @product.should_not be_valid

Hey Guys. I just updated a project form 1.1.4 that was working with autotest 3.10 without issues: 1) Updated spec/model/project_spec.rb and it fired only that spec. 2) Updated app/model/project.rb and it fired only the matching spec file. After the update of rspec and rspec-rails as plugins a few minutes ago, it only run the controller specs and no other. Also, it doesn''t matter which

Hi all, I have what I thought was quite a simple requirement but something to do with the way ActiveRecord''s associations work is making it quite puzzling. I guess I can sum it up with this failing test: before(:each) do @source_comment = @source.comments.create(:user_id => 1) @target_comment = @target.comments.create(:user_id => 1) end

I''m wanting to write a spec that a model is applying an :order option to a find call, but I don''t want to completely specify all of the find parameters. So I want to write something like this, say in a controller spec User.should_receive(:find).with(:all, hash_with_at_least(:order => ''user.name ASC'')) get ''index'', :sort =>

anyone able to explain logic behind "rake spec" startup? i.e. the below steps & why things occur when they do Macintosh-2:myequity greg$ rake spec --trace (in /Users/greg/source/myequity) ** Invoke spec (first_time) ** Invoke db:test:prepare (first_time) ** Invoke db:abort_if_pending_migrations (first_time) ** Invoke environment (first_time) ** Execute environment ** Execute

Is anyone out there writing specs to check attr_accessible fields? I had originally written my spec to check for allowing the desired fields, and then none of the other regular db fields. Unfortunately this isn''t satisfactory, because attr_protected could have been used instead, which of course wouldn''t prevent mass assignment to any whatever=(val) method. I''m thinking

Just wanted to let everyone know that I just posted an updated CHM file that contains documentation for Rails Version 1.0. You can read all about it here<http://www.delynnberry.com/articles/2006/02/07/rails-chm-documentation-version-1-0>. I plan to continue updating the CHM file as newer versions of Rails are announced, but I also want to finish an article that includes a rake file that will

I was disgruntled with the amount of spam I was getting, so I started setting up accounts for the various mailing lists I listen to. I use rspec at showcase60.com to read the mail here. Along with the rspec news that comes over this channel, I''m getting more and more spam addressed to this same account, which means that the open way this list passes around email addresses is

Just wondering if anyone else thinks that ''response.should be_success'' is potentially misleading. If you''re writing a spec for an action that is failing in some way it can still have a status 200. So while the HTTP request was technically successful, something in the action was not. Perhaps something like ''response.should have_success_status''? Steve