dchelimsky / rspec
watch download tarball
public
Forks134Right
Watchers1304Right
Description: Behaviour Driven Development framework for Ruby
Homepage: http://rspec.info
Clone URL: git://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec.git
Click here to lend your support to: rspec and make a donation at www.pledgie.com !

Comments for dchelimsky's rspec   feed

bret commented on dchelimsky/rspec Sun Oct 18 17:12:21 -0700 2009
Comment in 9e959c9:

Nice!

dchelimsky commented on dchelimsky/rspec Mon Sep 07 23:30:36 -0700 2009
Comment in ebfc3a2:

Get this out of the spec file!!!!!!

dcrec1 commented on dchelimsky/rspec Mon Apr 27 17:55:22 -0700 2009
Comment in bf719ff:

nice :)

dchelimsky commented on dchelimsky/rspec Tue Mar 31 23:03:09 -0700 2009
Comment in dbf94ff:

fsvehla – yes – sadly it’s to keep rcov happy

dchelimsky commented on dchelimsky/rspec Tue Mar 31 23:01:57 -0700 2009
Comment in b0a6f28:

Yep – fixed in 8a4f0ca203d4975bb78970cef86ca06bc5a9a76b

smtlaissezfaire commented on dchelimsky/rspec Fri Mar 20 07:04:10 -0700 2009
Comment on spec/spec/mocks/mock_spec.rb L591 in 988e646:

Looks like I missed an assertion. It should be:

dup.should respond_to(:foo)

fsvehla commented on dchelimsky/rspec Tue Mar 17 10:54:02 -0700 2009
Comment in dbf94ff:

Is this line end noise intentional?

relevance commented on dchelimsky/rspec Mon Mar 16 20:33:38 -0700 2009
Comment in d3da96a:

This is Rob, btw :)….damn shared accounts.

relevance commented on dchelimsky/rspec Mon Mar 16 20:33:18 -0700 2009
Comment in d3da96a:

Ah don’t you love rcov and what you have to do to hit 100%?

saturnflyer commented on dchelimsky/rspec Mon Mar 16 19:38:44 -0700 2009
Comment in 0ea5a85:

Sanity!

yizzreel commented on dchelimsky/rspec Fri Mar 06 09:30:12 -0800 2009
Comment on Upgrade.markdown L42 in b0a6f28:

Did you mean?

Spec::Matchers.create :be_a_multiple_of do

dchelimsky commented on dchelimsky/rspec Sun Feb 08 07:09:17 -0800 2009
Comment in 6b35223:

Can we have this conversation in the ticket?

http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/682-conditional-exclusion-of-example-groups

bmabey commented on dchelimsky/rspec Sat Feb 07 15:10:21 -0800 2009
Comment in 6b35223:

I am so excited to have this feature.

One thought.. do you think we should keep the CLI options similar to cucumber’s new tagging ones?

http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211/tickets/194-be-able-to-exclude-tags-from-a-run

lightningdb commented on dchelimsky/rspec Sun Jan 11 21:05:52 -0800 2009
Comment in 2937363:

yup… now I get: > gem q -rn rspec dchelimsky-dchelimsky-rspec (1.1.11.7) dchelimsky-dchelimsky-rspec-rails (1.1.11.7)

mislav commented on dchelimsky/rspec Sun Jan 11 06:46:17 -0800 2009
Comment in 2937363:

Why this change? Github automatically prefixes every gem with the name

josephwilk commented on dchelimsky/rspec Thu Jan 08 12:11:56 -0800 2009
Comment in 124c00d:

As a side note the RR mocking framework which can be used with Rspec supports test spies.

http://github.com/btakita/rr/tree/master

adzap commented on dchelimsky/rspec Wed Jan 07 21:55:48 -0800 2009
Comment in 124c00d:

bmabey, very interesting. I do prefer that pattern for message expectations so I think it worth investigating. The plugin has some draw backs to it so integrating into rspec proper would be best.

Will have a look at the rspec code and have a go at a patch.

bmabey commented on dchelimsky/rspec Wed Jan 07 19:37:59 -0800 2009
Comment in 124c00d:

adzap, we have discussed bringing the test spy pattern to rspec on the mailing list a couple of times. I think Pat was even implementing it. However, once it was brought up that the functionality already existed in the form of the plugin that you mentioned most effort on it ceased. If you still think it should be part of rspec proper, then I would recommend bringing it up again on the rspec mailing list or submitting a lighthouse ticket.

patmaddox commented on dchelimsky/rspec Wed Jan 07 16:43:40 -0800 2009
Comment in e944831:

doh! I like it :)

adzap commented on dchelimsky/rspec Wed Jan 07 12:29:17 -0800 2009
Comment in 124c00d:

What are your thoughts on something like a ‘should_have_received’ expectation? This would be akin to the not_a_mock plugin (see notahat/not_a_mock on github)