Hassan Schroeder wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry, Hassan. �Normally I respect your posts here very much, but in >> this case I think you're coming up with increasingly tenuous >> justifications for a very bad design decision. > > Uh, I'm not trying to "justify" anything. :-)
Perhaps I should have said "explain". Regardless, my criticisms are still as valid as they were. > > Perhaps what's been lost here is the original question -- how do you > use test-data generators like Machinist/Sham when you need an > example of *invalid* data, that is, values not in the generated set? > It's simple with fixtures, eh, but... Only because you're putting the checking in the wrong place. And anyway, that's a red herring: i explained how to do something exactly equivalent with Machinist (though I think it's a bad idea). > > Not every failing (TDD/BDD) test will have a solution implemented > solely based on adding foreign keys to a DB schema. > > Or so I imagine. :-) Of course that's true. But foreign key constraints are the proper solution in your case -- so use them! > > -- > Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ [email protected] > twitter: @hassan > > -- > > 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. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org [email protected] -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- 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.
