On 3/24/06, Corey Donohoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/23/06, Wilson Bilkovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been bugged recently by the way table names are resolved for test > fixtures. > > A side-effect of the current method is that you have to name all of > > your fixture accessors after the table, rather than after the class > > name. > > This means that things get a little less obvious for people using > > set_table_name, or Single Table Inheritance. > > > > For example, if I have AddressItem < Item and Item < > > ActiveRecord::Base, I have to use "fixtures :items" instead of > > "fixtures :address_items", and merge all my STI fixtures into one > > file. > > I noticed this patch today: > > http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/4095 > > ..and was inspired to do something about it. > > > > The attached patch works nicely with my unit tests, and doesn't seem > > to break anything.. but I'd appreciate if people using various > > platforms could give it a shot. > > Also, does this approach look like something appropriate for the core? > > I've seen a number of people ask about this on the Rails list, and go > > unanswered. If so, I'll make a ticket for it. > > > > Thanks, > > --Wilson. > > > > Worked as expected here for a small test case. I don't know how I feel > about breaking them up in fixtures when the tables are all of the data > combined. I guess I can kinda see both sides for keeping them in a single > fixture or breaking them out into a couple. This feels natural though. >
Thanks for checking it out. I forgot to say this in my first message, but the basic premise is that I should be able to refer to my fixtures by the name of the model class, without caring about the name of the table. It's easier for me to remember "fixture :some_subclass" when I'm writing tests for that particular set of behavior. _______________________________________________ Rails-core mailing list Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
