I think Jarkko is saying that no spec should have been written for the
code I was trying to fix/change. I’m not sure I would agree that
BDD/RSpec is an inappropriate tool for documenting what I was trying to
change, but I think he would argue that…
----- Original Message ----
From: David C. [email protected]
To: rspec-users [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 12:18:58 PM
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] params not available for controller specs?
On Dec 4, 2007 2:09 PM, Al Chou [email protected] wrote:
I get what you’re saying, but I was trying to fix a bug in existing
Substruct (that I did not write) that was caused by Rails passing the
as a /-delimited string and then not automatically decoding that
Substruct does not say that Edge Rails is a requirement, I felt it
documenting what I had to change to run it on Rails 1.2.x. Every
change should be driven by a test or example; perhaps in this
should’ve gone over to Test::Unit instead of staying in RSpec? An
interesting philosophical thought…
Seems to me this thread has been about how to deal with rails. I don’t
see what that has to do w/ a T::U vs rspec decision.
The problem is that params[:ids], although built as an Array object
That will get correctly parsed back to an array in the receiving
If params[:ids] is “1/2/3”, you can be pretty certain that split("/")
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.