On 30 Oct 2008, at 20:11, Pat Maddox wrote:
Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 30 Oct 2008, at 15:58, Zach Dennis wrote:
I know the above example breaks the one assertion per test guideline
people strive to adhere to, but I think it is ok. If there are more
examples that should be used to make sure find_thingy works then I'd
break out a separate describe block and have multiple 'it' examples,
It also goes to the database, which will make it a slow unit test. I
personally do pretty much the same thing myself mostly when working
with ActiveRecord, but it doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it. (And
it also doesn't mean our unit test suite is anything other than
shamefully slow)
I did experiment with a QueryApapter for this purpose which has
worked
out quite well for us. You end up with code like this in the
Controller:
Scott is working on a SQL parser which would let you write tests that
"hit" the db but keep everything in memory and fast. Might be worth
checking out for you.
Sounds interesting. I'd still like to see us have a proper ORM for
ruby that lets us play with POROs 90% of the time, and just have a
separate suite of tests for the database-object mappings that we run
when necessary.
cheers,
Matt
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
