Bill Walton wrote: > You do see the test fail. Then you 'tell' it to generate the method. > Again, it was a very brief demo. I may schedule a follow-up with the > guy to see more. The thing that was really impressive is that he > didn't switch from one tool to another. The degree of integration of > the test tool into the development tool was like nothing I'd ever seen > before. But then I don't spend much time reviewing editors / IDEs. > That's why I asked. And yes, NB supports ruby-debug-ide. Has for a > couple of years. You have to have the gems installed and that can be > a bit of a pain. I had to download the last, not the latest, version > and install locally.
That might be cool if it doesn't limit your choice of testing framework. My guess would be that having something so integrated into the IDE likely locks to into whatever test framework the IDE vendor decided to use. But, if it's flexible enough to provide choice of framework then I could see it maybe saving a few keystrokes. Not that big of a deal to me though. I mean how hard is it really to type def my_method ... end. And then likely have to move the generated method so that I keep my class files organized as I like. "If code generation is the answer, then it must have been a stupid question." -- 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.
