Dave Aronson wrote: [...] > 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.
Faster than reloading? Perhaps. Faster than rolling back a transaction? Doubtful. Faster than truncating a bunch of tables and writing tests so they don't involve lots of unnecessary records? Almost certainly not. (Yes, I said "unnecessary". You really don't need the entire constant table for tests.) > > -Dave 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.
