I've always liked using the Page Object pattern to write concise, namespaced, and composeable capybara helpers:
When /^I register as a new user$/ do
NewUserPage.new(self).tap do |page|
page.visit!
page.form.fill
page.form.submit!
source "https://rubygems.org" | |
gem "capybara" | |
gem "selenium-webdriver" |
I've always liked using the Page Object pattern to write concise, namespaced, and composeable capybara helpers:
When /^I register as a new user$/ do
NewUserPage.new(self).tap do |page|
page.visit!
page.form.fill
page.form.submit!
module ModuleA | |
def self.included(base) | |
base.send :extend, ClassMethods | |
base.send :include, InstanceMethods | |
end | |
module ClassMethods | |
def my_method | |
puts 'ModuleA#my_method' |
Pirates have notorious difficulty with enunciating. They tend to blur all the letters together and scream at people.
At long last, we need a way to unscramble what these pirates are saying.
Write a function that will accept a jumble of letters as well as a dictionary, and output a list of words that the pirate might have meant.
joernchen of Phenoelit joernchen@phenoelit.de
I hereby claim:
To claim this, I am signing this object:
Code reviews in most organizations are a painful experience for everyone involved. The developer often feels like it's a bashing session designed to beat out their will. The development leads are often confused as to what is important to point out and what isn't. And other developers that may be involved often use this as a chance to show how much better they can be by pointing out possible issues in someone else's code.
Code reviews, however, don't have to be painful.
Code reviews have two purposes. Their first purpose is to make sure that the code that is being produced has sufficient quality to be released. In other words, it's the acid test for whether the code should be proamoted to the next step in the process. Code reviews are very effective at finding errors of all types, including those caused by poor structure, those that don't match business process, and also those simple omissions. That's why they are an effective litmus test