Thanks! > but since we now picked a "winner" (jbuilder) for inclusion with core as the default
:) I've added JBuilder and (vanilla) Strong Parameters support into restful_json recently. I still like ActiveModel::Serializers for the view and Permitters (twinturbo's construct we're using, hopefully soon will get them into a gem) as an OO wrapper around Strong Parameters. Maybe at some point we'd switch to JBuilder and plain Strong Parameters. It's nice to have options, and it's also nice to have a default! On Monday, April 15, 2013 1:41:06 PM UTC-4, Godfrey Chan wrote: > > TL;DR... If someone is going to add this, I'm definitely a +1 (fwiw) > > > > I completely agree with Steve that the generated tests are just examples, > but from there I drew the opposite conclusion (unless I misunderstood what > you said). I might be biased (I wrote > json_expressions<https://github.com/chancancode/json_expressions>), > but I think testing JSON responses is important, especially when they are > used as an API consumed by other components of your system. For that > reason, I think it's definitely worth putting in some examples and > guidance around testing JSON responses. > > There are a lot of implementation problems to think about such as (even > when it's just serving the role of an example/placeholder, such as: > > - What (not) to cover > - Unit tests or integration tests > - How to assert on the value of the JSON response (I don't think it's > worth pulling in any dependencies here for this, so what I meant is more > along the lines of some pure-Ruby idiom that would work well for the simple > cases) > > I don't think these are particularly hard problems to solve. Granted, not > everyone would like it, some people would prefer to do it differently and > some simply won't care. However, I think some convention here is better > than no convention. > > It was a bit tricky to do before, but since we now picked a "winner" > (jbuilder) for inclusion with core as the default, it should make things > easier, so I think this is a pretty good time to add this. (If we do this > right, other gems would just hook in to the generators and provide > different test cases around their conventions.) > > Godfrey > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Steve Klabnik > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> The purpose of generating tests is more about giving a little example >> than testing it thoroughly. Given, as you say, jBuilder has tests, >> doesn't seem tremendously useful. >> >> > (since they really wouldn't be used) >> >> Hypermedia APIs will use these. ;) >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to >> [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
