Ginty wrote: > On May 25, 10:51�pm, Marnen Laibow-Koser <[email protected]> wrote: >> > arguments....meh. >> >> Uh, no. �Passing closures (blocks) as arguments is one feature that >> makes Ruby very powerful. �You'll have to do better than "meh" to >> explain why you're choosing not to use a key Ruby feature, at least if >> you want people to take you seriously and use your software. >> >> > Haha, yeah you've probably taken me down a path here I didn't really > mean to go down. > > Marnen says: I didn't lead you down ... > > Yeah I know. > > Bottom line, this to me is ugly: > > u.email {|a| "#{a.first_name}.#{[email protected]" } > > this is more elegant in it's simplicity: > > :email => "#{first_name}.#{[email protected]" > > Personal preference.
For a trivial example like that, sure. But it doesn't generalize to anything more complex. Blocks do. > >> >> is so I can just say Widget.make and get a fully viable Widget object, >> > and how you relate them. >> >> > def user >> > � # Define attributes via a hash, generate the values any way you want >> > � define :name � �=> "Jimmy", >> > � � � � �# An 'n' counter method is available to help make things >> > unique >> >> Does it work with Faker? > > Yeah it'll work with anything like that, you're just defining a > regular method, I noticed that. On what class? > require what you will. > >> >> > � � � � �:email � => "jimmy#[email protected]", >> > � � � � �:role � �=> :user, >> > � � � � �# Call your own helper methods to wire up your >> > associations... >> >> Does :user just get passed to a helper, or what? > > Good point, maybe a bad example, :user was just the value I pass to my > user.role= method. Why on earth would you assign a symbol to what I assume is an association? > It doesn't refer to the user factory, model or > otherwise. Could equally have been :admin or what have you. I'll > change this in the docs. > >> >> And what didn't you feel in control of with Machinist or Factory Girl? >> Machinist in particular just uses the usual Rails association >> mechanisms. >> > > For me they are too heavy, too much magic at times (admittedly I am a > Factory Girl guy), I need to think too much about how to create an > association if I want anything other than a randomly generated one, > and ultimately I just don't like the syntax. I'm not all that fond of FG's association syntax either. But for Machinist, it really is just Post.make.comments.make or Comment.make :post => Post.make just like Rails. If you find that hard to understand, I don't know what more I can say. > The combination of these > things has made me feel that I've never really 'flowed' with this > aspect of writing my tests for want of a better description. > Then try Machinist! > I said in the blog that Miniskirt was a real revelation to me as it > showed me that these factory helpers don't need to do much, I don't > quite understand now why some of them are so big under the hood, but > Miniskirt didn't hit the syntax aspect for me either. I've never even heard of it. > > So Cranky is now my factory of choice, it feels good, very good, and I > don't think that I have abnormal tastes. So I've packaged it up should > others like it to. So if you do cool, if you don't that's cool to, > we're not exactly short of choice here. I think that in your quest for "simplicity", you've wound up with something that seems to take twice as much work as Machinist to set up a usable test environment. 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.
