In an ideal world, code should never be checked into the repository that breaks the unit tests, one of the points of continuous integration is to encourage people not to check in broken code.
I develop Rails apps (with Site5) on my Powerbook at home, but they are always deployed to Linux boxes, which, due to the wide ranges of libraries we use, sometimes causes incompatabilities and build breakages. Although my tests often run okay on my pbook, they may break on our Linux CIA box - to prevent that, I have a script that rsync's my working copy to an account on our test Linux box and runs the tests to confirm that nothing is broken. Though there may be some effort involved, perhaps it is worthwhile for the comitters to be set up with accounts on a 'test box' that is capable of running the entire suite of unit tests. Obviously, to handle SQL Server it would have to be a windows box, but luckily, nearly all (perhaps all?) of the databases supported are free, or have free versions available - I know that crippled (but adequate) versions of SQL Server and Oracle are available, not sure about Sybase (is that free now?) and DB2. Having a single activerecord test box would (IMO) go a long way towards maintaining continuous integrity of the code, and it would also have the added side effect of minimising the build breakage spam on this list :) Cheers, -David Felstead On 7/9/06, Kevin Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think we should reduce that sort of spam. The point is that it's annoying so it gets fixed. Maybe we can put something in the subject though so those of us who don't care about oracle and pgsql breaking can filter it out? Kev On 7/8/06, Blair Zajac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ideally, if you could have the same person manage Oracle and other > databases, then you could have the Oracle tests run, and if they > pass, run the Postgresql tests. While this would delay the report of > Postgresql specific problems when there is also an Oracle specific > problem, it would reduce spam. > > We have Postgresql and Oracle at work, or perhaps Michael, who > reports the Oracle tests, could set it up for Postgresql? > > Regards, > Blair > > On Jul 8, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Mislav Marohnić wrote: > > > Having both Postgres and SQL server in addition to Oracle autotest > > results on the list would spam it pretty much, I think. What do > > others think? > > > > On 7/8/06, Rick Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We have some > > interest in providing the same service for Postgres -- > > would you be so kind as to forward me a copy of your script and we'll > > see if we can get a Postgres test server set up (unless there are some > > objections by people on the core list). > > _______________________________________________ > Rails-core mailing list > Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core > -- Kevin Clark http://glu.ttono.us _______________________________________________ Rails-core mailing list Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
_______________________________________________ Rails-core mailing list Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
