gem_repackager 0.1.0

data/support/gems/rspec-rails-2.11.0/features/mocks/stub_model.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+Feature: stub_model
+  
+  The stub_model method generates an instance of a Active Model model.
+  
+  While you can use stub_model in any example (model, view, controller,
+  helper), it is especially useful in view examples, which are inherently
+  more state-based than interaction-based.
+   
+  Scenario: passing an Active Record constant with a hash of stubs
+    Given a file named "spec/models/widget_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe "stub_model(Widget) with a hash of stubs" do
+        let(:widget) do
+          stub_model Widget, :id => 5, :random_attribute => true
+        end
+        
+        it "stubs :id" do
+          widget.id.should eql(5)
+        end
+        
+        it "stubs :random_attribute" do
+          widget.random_attribute.should be_true
+        end
+        
+        it "returns false for new_record? if :id is set" do
+          widget.should_not be_new_record
+        end
+        
+        it "can be converted to a new record" do
+          widget.as_new_record
+          widget.should be_new_record
+        end
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec spec/models/widget_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass
+    
+  Scenario: passing an Active Record constant with a block of stubs
+    Given a file named "spec/models/widget_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe "stub_model(Widget) with a block of stubs" do
+        let(:widget) do
+          stub_model Widget do |widget|
+            widget.id = 5
+          end
+        end
+        
+        it "stubs :id" do
+          widget.id.should eql(5)
+        end
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec spec/models/widget_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass

data/support/gems/rspec-rails-2.11.0/features/model_specs/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+Model specs live in `spec/models` or any example group with
+`:type => :model`.
+
+A model spec is a thin wrapper for an ActiveSupport::TestCase, and includes all
+of the behavior and assertions that it provides, in addition to RSpec's own
+behavior and expectations.
+
+## Examples
+
+    require "spec_helper"
+    
+    describe Post do
+      context "with 2 or more comments" do
+        it "orders them in reverse" do
+          post = Post.create
+          comment1 = post.comment("first")
+          comment2 = post.comment("second")
+          post.reload.comments.should eq([comment2, comment1])
+        end
+      end
+    end

data/support/gems/rspec-rails-2.11.0/features/model_specs/errors_on.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+Feature: errors_on
+
+  Scenario: with one validation error
+    Given a file named "spec/models/widget_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      class ValidatingWidget < ActiveRecord::Base
+        set_table_name :widgets
+        validates_presence_of :name
+        attr_accessible :name
+      end
+
+      describe ValidatingWidget do
+        it "fails validation with no name (using error_on)" do
+          ValidatingWidget.new.should have(1).error_on(:name)
+        end
+
+        it "fails validation with no name (using errors_on)" do
+          ValidatingWidget.new.should have(1).errors_on(:name)
+        end
+
+        it "passes validation with a name (using 0)" do
+          ValidatingWidget.new(:name => "liquid nitrogen").should have(0).errors_on(:name)
+        end
+
+        it "passes validation with a name (using :no)" do
+          ValidatingWidget.new(:name => "liquid nitrogen").should have(:no).errors_on(:name)
+        end
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec spec/models/widget_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass

data/support/gems/rspec-rails-2.11.0/features/model_specs/transactional_examples.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+Feature: transactional examples
+
+  By default rspec executes each individual example in a transaction.
+
+  You can also explicitly enable/disable transactions the configuration
+  property 'use_transactional_examples'.
+
+  Scenario: run in transactions (default)
+    Given a file named "spec/models/widget_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe Widget do
+        it "has none to begin with" do
+          Widget.count.should == 0
+        end
+
+        it "has one after adding one" do
+          Widget.create
+          Widget.count.should == 1
+        end
+
+        it "has none after one was created in a previous example" do
+          Widget.count.should == 0
+        end
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec spec/models/widget_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass
+
+  Scenario: run in transactions (explicit)
+    Given a file named "spec/models/widget_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      RSpec.configure do |c|
+        c.use_transactional_examples = true
+      end
+
+      describe Widget do
+        it "has none to begin with" do
+          Widget.count.should == 0
+        end
+
+        it "has one after adding one" do
+          Widget.create
+          Widget.count.should == 1
+        end
+
+        it "has none after one was created in a previous example" do
+          Widget.count.should == 0
+        end
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec spec/models/widget_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass
+
+  Scenario: disable transactions (explicit)
+    Given a file named "spec/models/widget_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      RSpec.configure do |c|
+        c.use_transactional_examples = false
+        c.order = "default"
+      end
+
+      describe Widget do
+        it "has none to begin with" do
+          Widget.count.should == 0
+        end
+
+        it "has one after adding one" do
+          Widget.create
+          Widget.count.should == 1
+        end
+
+        it "has one after one was created in a previous example" do
+          Widget.count.should == 1
+        end
+
+        after(:all) { Widget.destroy_all }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec spec/models/widget_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass
+
+  Scenario: run in transactions with fixture
+    Given a file named "spec/models/thing_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe Thing do
+        fixtures :things
+        it "fixture method defined" do
+          things(:one)
+        end
+      end
+      """
+    Given a file named "spec/fixtures/things.yml" with:
+      """
+      one:
+        name: MyString
+      """
+    When I run `rspec spec/models/thing_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass
+
+
+

data/support/gems/rspec-rails-2.11.0/features/request_specs/request_spec.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+Feature: request spec
+
+  Request specs provide a thin wrapper around Rails' integration tests, and are
+  designed to drive behavior through the full stack, including routing
+  (provided by Rails) and without stubbing (that's up to you).
+
+  With request specs, you can:
+
+  * specify a single request
+  * specify multiple requests across multiple controllers
+  * specify multiple requests across multiple sessions
+
+  Check the rails documentation on integration tests for more information.
+
+  RSpec provides two matchers that delegate to Rails assertions:
+
+      render_template # delegates to assert_template
+      redirect_to     # delegates to assert_redirected_to
+
+  Check the Rails docs for details on these methods as well.
+
+  If you would like to use webrat or capybara with your request specs, all you
+  have to do is include one of them in your Gemfile and RSpec will
+  automatically load them in a request spec.
+
+  Scenario: specify managing a Widget with Rails integration methods
+    Given a file named "spec/requests/widget_management_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe "Widget management" do
+
+        it "creates a Widget and redirects to the Widget's page" do
+          get "/widgets/new"
+          response.should render_template(:new)
+
+          post "/widgets", :widget => {:name => "My Widget"}
+
+          response.should redirect_to(assigns(:widget))
+          follow_redirect!
+
+          response.should render_template(:show)
+          response.body.should include("Widget was successfully created.")
+        end
+
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec spec/requests/widget_management_spec.rb`
+    Then the example should pass

data/support/gems/rspec-rails-2.11.0/features/routing_specs/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+Routing specs live in the `spec/routing` directory, or any example group with
+`:type => :routing`.
+
+Simple apps with nothing but standard RESTful routes won't get much value from
+routing specs, but they can provide significant value when used to specify
+customized routes, like vanity links, slugs, etc.
+
+    { :get => "/articles/2012/11/when-to-use-routing-specs" }.
+      should route_to(
+        :controller => "articles",
+        :month => "2012-11",
+        :slug => "when-to-use-routing-specs"
+      )
+
+They are also valuable for routes that should not be available:
+
+    { :delete => "/accounts/37" }.should_not be_routable

data/support/gems/rspec-rails-2.11.0/features/routing_specs/be_routable_matcher.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+Feature: be_routable matcher
+
+  The `be_routable` matcher is best used with `should_not` to specify that a
+  given route should not be routable. It is available in routing specs (in
+  spec/routing) and controller specs (in spec/controllers).
+
+  Scenario: specify routeable route should not be routable (fails)
+    Given a file named "spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe "routes for Widgets" do
+        it "does not route to widgets" do
+          { :get => "/widgets" }.should_not be_routable
+        end
+      end
+      """
+
+    When I run `rspec spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain "1 example, 1 failure"
+
+  Scenario: specify non-routeable route should not be routable (passes)
+    Given a file named "spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe "routes for Widgets" do
+        it "does not route to widgets/foo/bar" do
+          { :get => "/widgets/foo/bar" }.should_not be_routable
+        end
+      end
+      """
+
+    When I run `rspec spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass
+
+  Scenario: specify routeable route should be routable (passes)
+    Given a file named "spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe "routes for Widgets" do
+        it "routes to /widgets" do
+          { :get => "/widgets" }.should be_routable
+        end
+      end
+      """
+
+    When I run `rspec spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass
+
+  Scenario: specify non-routeable route should be routable (fails)
+    Given a file named "spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe "routes for Widgets" do
+        it "routes to widgets/foo/bar" do
+          { :get => "/widgets/foo/bar" }.should be_routable
+        end
+      end
+      """
+
+    When I run `rspec spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain "1 example, 1 failure"
+
+  Scenario: be_routable in a controller spec
+    Given a file named "spec/controllers/widgets_controller_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe WidgetsController do
+        it "routes to /widgets" do
+          { :get => "/widgets" }.should be_routable
+        end
+      end
+      """
+
+    When I run `rspec spec/controllers/widgets_controller_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass

data/support/gems/rspec-rails-2.11.0/features/routing_specs/named_routes.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+Feature: named routes
+
+  Routing specs have access to named routes.
+
+  Scenario: access named route
+    Given a file named "spec/routing/widget_routes_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe "routes to the widgets controller" do
+        it "routes a named route" do
+          {:get => new_widget_path}.
+            should route_to(:controller => "widgets", :action => "new")
+        end
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec spec`
+    Then the examples should all pass

data/support/gems/rspec-rails-2.11.0/features/routing_specs/route_to_matcher.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+Feature: route_to matcher
+
+  The `route_to` matcher specifies that a request (verb + path) is routable.
+  It is most valuable when specifying routes other than standard RESTful
+  routes.
+
+      get("/").should route_to("welcome#index") # new in 2.6.0
+
+      or
+
+      { :get => "/" }.should route_to(:controller => "welcome")
+
+  Scenario: passing route spec with shortcut syntax
+    Given a file named "spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe "routes for Widgets" do
+        it "routes /widgets to the widgets controller" do
+          get("/widgets").
+            should route_to("widgets#index")
+        end
+      end
+      """
+
+    When I run `rspec spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass
+
+  Scenario: passing route spec with verbose syntax
+    Given a file named "spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe "routes for Widgets" do
+        it "routes /widgets to the widgets controller" do
+          { :get => "/widgets" }.
+            should route_to(:controller => "widgets", :action => "index")
+        end
+      end
+      """
+
+    When I run `rspec spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass
+
+  Scenario: route spec for a route that doesn't exist (fails)
+    Given a file named "spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe "routes for Widgets" do
+        it "routes /widgets/foo to the /foo action" do
+          get("/widgets/foo").should route_to("widgets#foo")
+        end
+      end
+      """
+
+    When I run `rspec spec/routing/widgets_routing_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain "1 failure"
+
+  Scenario: route spec for a namespaced route with shortcut specifier
+    Given a file named "spec/routing/admin_routing_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      require "spec_helper"
+
+      describe "routes for Widgets" do
+        it "routes /admin/accounts to the admin/accounts controller" do
+          get("/admin/accounts").
+            should route_to("admin/accounts#index")
+        end
+      end
+      """
+
+    When I run `rspec spec/routing/admin_routing_spec.rb`
+    Then the examples should all pass
+
+  Scenario: route spec for a namespaced route with verbose specifier
+   Given a file named "spec/routing/admin_routing_spec.rb" with:
+     """
+     require "spec_helper"
+
+     describe "routes for Widgets" do
+       it "routes /admin/accounts to the admin/accounts controller" do
+         get("/admin/accounts").
+           should route_to(:controller => "admin/accounts", :action => "index")
+       end
+     end
+     """
+
+   When I run `rspec spec/routing/admin_routing_spec.rb`
+   Then the examples should all pass