On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 13:34, Marnen Laibow-Koser <[email protected]> wrote:
> I can't. You didn't quote it. Eh? It's quoted in the copy I have here.... > Are you referring to the bit about the triggers? If so, do you *really* > think that that's any less work than using transactions or clearing the > database? (Hint: it isn't. Triggers sound great in theory, but they > are a pain in all implementations that I'm aware of.) Work is not the only dimension being considered here. It seemed to me that the OP's objective was to avoid reloading the database for each test, which isn't any more *human* work than doing it once (at least, having it in the standard setup section versus each test). Hence his objective is probably *speed*, which is also important for tests, in order to run them frequently. Having a trigger, or constraint, or other such mechanism, on something that isn't supposed to happen, is bound to be faster than frequently reloading a huge database. -Dave -- Specialization is for insects. | Professional: http://davearonson.com -Robert Anson Heinlein | Programming: http://codosaur.us -------------------------------+ Leadership: http://dare2xl.com Have Pun, Will Babble! -me | Et Cetera: http://davearonson.net -- 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.
