Rob Biedenharn wrote: > On Jul 13, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: >> difference from production, more general hassle. >> >> I still maintain that the right answer is not to test with all 85,000 >> records. Just create what you need for a particular test. >> >> Best, >> -- >> Marnen Laibow-Koser >> http://www.marnen.org >> [email protected] > > Perhaps you missed the part about this being a data warehouse.
I didn't miss it. I don't think it's particularly relevant to *testing approaches*, though. > It's > probably already a separate database. The OP has given us no reason to believe this. > Technically, it's just a > separate schema within a database. And why does this have to be > different from production? Because as far as we know, the OP is using one database for production. > If this is truly read-only data, then > production or any environment can use exactly the same technique. (And > multiple environments could use one golden copy of that reference > data, too.) That's certainly true. I still think, though, that all this runs into the expensive setup smell that we generally try to avoid when testing. Your points are valid for production, but no test environment needs 85,000 reference records. > > -Rob 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.
