On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> Problem:
>
> When using the test client, it's simple to check for a 200 response
> code, but not quite as simple to quickly determine, why a 500 was
> encountered, in the case of a test failure.
>
> Proposed Solution:
>
> A new test method which
Problem:
When using the test client, it's simple to check for a 200 response
code, but not quite as simple to quickly determine, why a 500 was
encountered, in the case of a test failure.
Proposed Solution:
A new test method which expects a status code of X, and when a 500 is
encountered instead,
