On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas 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.
Rails doesn't really ship with any testing framework. It defaults to what's in Ruby core, which is Test/Unit in 1.8 and MiniTest in 1.9. > > 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.
