On Aug 11, 9:39 pm, Marnen Laibow-Koser <rails-mailing-l...@andreas-
s.net> wrote:
> Frank J. Mattia wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I've just ripped out all of my Test::Unit stuff
>
> That may or may not be good, depending on how much you had to rip out.
> Then again, you can always use your version control system to go back...
>
> > I am having a go at
> > starting fresh with RSpec, Cucumber and Machinist... Please understand
> > that I've only been casually programming for the past 10 years as a
> > way to kill time and challenge myself. I have no formal training,
>
> Neither do I.
>
> > never wrote anything serious and the fact that I've written anything
> > at all that works is a blessing because before last week - I had never
> > written a test in my life - let alone put any thought into testing an
> > entire application.
>
> Hey, don't feel bad. I worked professionally as a programmer for years
> without a systematic testing approach.
>
> > TDD/BDD are both intriguing and believe me - I see
> > their advantages... I'm just very slow on the uptake right now. It's
> > not the way I'm used to programming **read that as "I've developed a
> > lot of bad habits on my own and now I want to break them the right
> > way**.
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> > SO.
>
> > The one thing that keeps coming back to haunt me is that no Factory
> > framework seems to let you test complete objects from the has_many
> > side of the association without doing some serious legwork.
>
> What are you talking about? What do you mean by testing from the
> has_many side?
In retrospect that was a bad choice of words. What I should of said
was, "make complete objects". Then again, I may not fully understand
what I'm trying to do... In which case, this may be a long, painful
road... err. I mean... labor of love.
>From the machinist webpage.
================
Other Associations
For has_many and has_and_belongs_to_many associations, ActiveRecord
insists that the object be saved before any associated objects can be
saved. That means ***you can't generate the associated objects from
within the blueprint.***
The simplest solution is to write a test helper:
def make_post_with_comments(attributes = {})
post = Post.make(attributes)
3.times { post.comments.make }
post
end
Note here that you can call make on a has_many association. (This
isn't yet supported for DataMapper.)
================
So suppose I write the following:
def make_complete_quote_object(attributes = {})
quote = Quote.make(attributes)
5.times {
quote.quotable_operations.make
}
quote.quotable_quantities.make
quote
end
Where does that go and do I just use that in lieu of Quote.make? For
example:
new_quote = make_complete_quote_objects(:description => "blah blah
blah")
>
> > I see
> > examples on the Machinist git page that suggest using helper methods
> > but that brings me to another road block. Where do I write them? How
> > are they called? What types of things should I not be testing at that
> > level?
>
> If memory serves, the Machinist webpage tells you all you need to know
> here.
>
>
>
> > Now, my own personal itch of a project is still small enough that I
> > don't mind ripping entire sections of tests out and rewriting them
> > with new frameworks just to learn how. 1) I have the time and 2) I'm
> > interested in learning how to do it right more than I am in doing
> > it... If that makes sense. The parts of my app work just fine for me
> > without tests... but knowing my itch, I'm going to want to add
> > complexity and knowing how Ruby and Rails works - I want to add it the
> > right way so that it's fun for me to do...
>
> Great!
>
>
>
> > Anyway - I'm getting off topic again.
>
> > Back in my first post I describe a situation that I was trying to
> > test. Could you tell me how I should be approaching that issue (which
> > may very well be much different than the way I've been approaching
> > it). Why is testing from the has_many side so taboo? Is there a
> > legitimate way of doing it from the belongs_to side?
>
> I think if you just set up your blueprints properly, you'll get what you
> need.
>
>
>
> > Thank you for your reply and thank you too Marnen.
>
> > You have both given me good food for thought, even if I don't know how
> > to eat it yet.
>
> > Hehe. Thanks,
> > - FJM
>
> You're welcome!
>
> Best,
> --
> Marnen Laibow-Koserhttp://www.marnen.org
> [email protected]
> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Thank you again (and again, I'm sure).
- FJM
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
