On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM, David Chelimsky <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Rick DeNatale <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:17 AM, David Chelimsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Rick DeNatale wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:10 PM, David Chelimsky <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:14 PM, geetarista <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Since Rspec-Rails 2 is specifically geared toward Rails 3, I'm >>>>>> wondering why it doesn't use railtie, the new generators, etc. Will >>>>>> it stay this way or is it planned to support that? >>>>> >>>>> It does use the new generators, and we do have a railtie, but bundler >>>>> doesn't support exposing the railtie in the :test group by default, so >>>>> if you do this: >>>>> >>>>> group :test do >>>>> gem "rspec-rails" >>>>> end >>>>> >>>>> ... then you won't see the rake tasks or the generators. I believe >>>>> this will be addressed in bundler before it goes final, at which point >>>>> we'll rely only on the railtie. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I see how bundler would address this, but couldn't it be >>>> addressed by breaking the stuff you need from rspec-rails in the >>>> development environment into a separate rspec-rails-dev gem or >>>> something like that. >>>> >>>> Breaking up gems seems to have been a theme in the transition from >>>> Rails 2 -> Rails 3. >>>> >>>> Just an idea >>> >>> And an interesting one at that, but I think it would add to more confusion >>> than not. Right now you just have to require 'rspec-rails' in the Gemfile >>> and it depends on rspec, which depends on all the other gems. If we >>> separated out a gem for generators/rake tasks, it would need to be outside >>> the test group, so you'd have one rspec gem in one group and one in another. >>> >>> I spoke w/ wycats about this issue at RailsConf and he agreed that railties >>> in the test group should be exposed in development mode. RSpec won't be the >>> only tool that this impacts, nor would RSpec users be the only people. >>> >>> That all make sense? >> >> Well if it makes sense to you and Yehuda, that's all that matters. >> I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of bundler loading >> part of a gem, but that's probably cuz I really haven't dug into how >> bundler really works. > > I hadn't considered that :) I imagine it would have to load the gem. > I'll discuss further w/ carlhuda and follow up when I know something > new.
Remembering back to my conversation with Yehuda, the idea was that the rake command and script/rails g script need bundler to load gems in the test group in order for gems like cucumber-rails and rspec-rails to expose tasks and generators via a railtie. So it's not a bundler issue, but a rails issue. In fact, there's a rails ticket, to which I've added a comment that looks suspiciously like the first sentence in this paragraph. https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/3774-gem-generators-are-not-found-by-scriptgenerate#ticket-3774-3 Cheers, David _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
