Named scope is newer than Rails 1.2, so forgive me asking: Is named scope incapable of working without hitting the database, or should it work fine in theory unless you've got SQL in it?
Andrew On 26/08/2011, at 3:03 PM, Dmytrii Nagirniak <[email protected]> wrote: > I would have thought this situation would be fairly common in a rails > application, how are people handling this currently? > > I would just hit the database. Correct behavior here would be more important > than couple of milliseconds saved. > > It reminds me 2 things: > > 1. When rails 3 was released it could not boot even though all tests passed. > The reason was that boot-up process was stubbed (don't remember exact details > though). > > 2. you can't stub one of the most powerful things - plain SQL. I saw people > stubbing it and checking SQL that would be executed. It might work, but it is > something that is too much detached from real situation. > > I might be in minority, but I prefer to stub as little as possible. Most of > it would be something without consistent state (database has consistent > state), availability etc. Not necessarily external services (http requests), > but internal as well (Time). > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
