What Rodrigo said. +1 for jasmine
Allen Madsen http://www.allenmadsen.com On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[email protected] > wrote: > ** > When you do that, it would be similar to not adding tests on generators or > not providing Coffeescript or SASS support in a default new Rails > application. > > I doubt Coffeescript would be largely used if not included in Rails by > default. I prefer Rspec over Test/Unit but I don't see any problems with > Rails shipping the last by default. And there are other test units available > too, but Rails chose one anyway... And I agree with that. > > The problem is that the message that Rails gives to developers is that > Javascript (or Coffeescript) doesn't need to be tested or it would be > generated by the generators. > > I think that lots of developers would worry more about testing Javascript > and organizing their files if Rails guided them how to do that through > examples in the generated code. > > We don't need to take the best shot now. Anything chosen as default is good > as far as we can change the defaults. We would probably have a new book on > testing Javascript with Rails showing up soon. > > The only dedicated book I know of is the book from my friend at Gitorious > AS, Christian Johansen: > > > http://www.amazon.com/Test-Driven-JavaScript-Development-ebook/dp/B004519O02/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AGFP5ZROMRZFO > > Did you get my point? > > > Em 31-08-2011 18:56, Ryan Bigg escreveu: > > I think due to the large number of testing frameworks out there for > JavaScript, we should leave this in the developer's hands and not make it a > part of the Rails core. > > > > On 31/08/2011, at 23:06, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi guys, > > While reading the 3.1 release notes in Rails Guides, I've stumbled across > this phrase: > > "The major change in Rails 3.1 is the Assets Pipeline. It makes CSS and > JavaScript first-class code citizens and enables proper organization, > including use in plugins and engines." > > Then, I started thinking that it might not be really true. I guess, that it > is time for Rails to adopt a default testing framework for Javascript (both > unit and integration). > > There should also exist a Javascript generator that would generate the > empty test file too. It would also be interesting if we could generate views > with "--include-javascript", which would include a new file, like, for > instance, with jQuery: > > jQuery(function($){ > // place your code here. > }) > > Is there already something like this in Rails? I don't remember reading > anything about Javascript TDD natively with Rails. > > It seems like Capybara has became the defacto solution for this kind of > test. Maybe it could be the default Javascript test framework (using webkit > by default, maybe). > > Any thoughts? > > Cheers, > > Rodrigo. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
