dammit me be moron, forgot to edit subject
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Chuck van der Linden cerne...@gmail.comwrote:
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:24:21 +0100
From: aidy lewis aidy.le...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] RSpec makes me want to write better code
To: rspec-users
Hi David
2009/3/31 David Chelimsky dchelim...@gmail.com:
The point of TDD is writing small examples and small bits of code in a
cycle. The point of BDD is to write high level scenarios so you know
what code to write, but then drive it out in detail with TDD.
Does this necessitate that the
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:01 AM, aidy lewis aidy.le...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi David
2009/3/31 David Chelimsky dchelim...@gmail.com:
The point of TDD is writing small examples and small bits of code in a
cycle. The point of BDD is to write high level scenarios so you know
what code to
Hi David
2009/4/1 David Chelimsky dchelim...@gmail.com:
. That said, in some idealistic BDD fashion, I'd think the best
deal would be the tester and developer pairing on automating AC. Then
that developer would pair with another developer driving out the code
w/ TDD.
If we have two different
Fernando Perez wrote:
Hi,
Today is a big day. I officially transitioned from manually testing by
clicking around in my app, to automated testing with RSpec + Autotest.
6 months since my initial post, what happened in between?
- My controllers are getting anorexic, and that's good. An action
By getting, do you mean new controllers arrive skinny? Or that you
have
refactored the same fat controllers, over time, until they are skinny?
The latter is preferred, because we should not be writing the same sites
over
and over again. In theory!
My good ole' fat pig controllers, are
Fernando Perez wrote:
As a habit I like to abuse of the save button even if I only corrected
some typos in comments, or changed the indentation. Suddenly autotest
would kick in for nothing.
Autotest sucks. If we have too many tests, it runs them all, and this slows us
down.
Our editor
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Zach Dennis zach.den...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Fernando Perez li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
Fernando Perez wrote:
Hi,
Today is a big day. I officially transitioned from manually testing by
clicking around in my app, to automated
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Phlip phlip2...@gmail.com wrote:
Fernando Perez wrote:
As a habit I like to abuse of the save button even if I only corrected
some typos in comments, or changed the indentation. Suddenly autotest would
kick in for nothing.
Autotest sucks. If we have too
Hi Phlip,
On 31/03/2009, Phlip phlip2...@gmail.com wrote:
Our editor support for TDD also sucks. It should run the most recently
edited test cases, nearly automatically. Everyone swears by Textmate, and it
simply can't do that. Then, the Java-based editors also can't do it!
What editor are
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Fernando Perez li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
Fernando Perez wrote:
Hi,
Today is a big day. I officially transitioned from manually testing by
clicking around in my app, to automated testing with RSpec + Autotest.
6 months since my initial post, what happened
aidy lewis wrote:
What editor are you then proposing? Or are you saying that all current
editors lag behind XP practices?
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2008/05/dynamic_languages_vs_editors.html
___
rspec-users mailing list
Please be careful when making absolute statements like this. First of
all, even just a bug reporting tool adds tremendous value for the
customer, because your catching bugs before they make it to
production.
Value is what a customer is something he is ready to pay more money for.
Well, we
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Fernando Perez li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
Please be careful when making absolute statements like this. First of
all, even just a bug reporting tool adds tremendous value for the
customer, because your catching bugs before they make it to
production.
Value is
On 31 Mar 2009, at 18:19, David Chelimsky wrote:
Autotest sucks. If we have too many tests, it runs them all, and
this slows
us down.
Or, conversely, autotest is awesome if you take the time to learn
how to use it:
http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2008/3/5/limiting-scope-of-autotest
I like them much better than the gremlins.
On 30 Sep 2008, at 14:09, Dan North wrote:
We do have pixies! They do all the magic stuff.
How else do you think it happens?
;)
2008/9/27 aslak hellesoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:32 PM, David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 26 Sep 2008, at 17:28, Mark Wilden wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Ashley Moran
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One downside to STI is it forces you to leave NULL columns for
attributes that don't exist in all models. This is also really bad
for integrity.
I think all of your
2008/9/26 David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Mark Wilden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Ashley Moran
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me, spec'ing attributes is a red flag. It is not always a bad thing
or wrong, but it suggests that
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Dan North [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems these conversations come up time and again because Rails overloads
the idea of model. In a Rails app the model serves as both your domain
model and your persistence strategy, because of the coupling inherent in the
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Mark Wilden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Dan North [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems these conversations come up time and again because Rails
overloads the idea of model. In a Rails app the model serves as both your
domain model
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:32 PM, David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Mark Wilden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess this makes me an AR pixie. :)
I *think* Dan means underlying magic code when he uses the word pixie.
Oh. Right.
Never mind. :)
///ark
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:32 PM, David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Mark Wilden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Dan North [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems these conversations come up time and again because Rails
overloads the
On Sep 27, 2008, at 12:16 am, David Chelimsky wrote:
This is really a deficiency of ActiveRecord migrations in my view.
DataMapper, for example, offers auto-migrations. You just add a
property to your model file and it takes care of the migration for
you. Of course, the way it does this is to
On Sep 27, 2008, at 9:17 am, Matt Wynne wrote:
I wouldn't call this the 'rails way' particularly - I think it's
more of a general OO design philosophy that says the database is
just an implementation detail. I have gradually moved, over the
years, from feeling like the database needed to
On 25 Sep 2008, at 17:48, Mark Wilden wrote:
Each controller action only calls one model method other than an
initial find or new..
I didn't get that article (or, rather, that particular subarticle)
at all.
I kinda tuned out when I read, Polymorphic associations, however, are
On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:31, Ashley Moran wrote:
On 25 Sep 2008, at 17:48, Mark Wilden wrote:
Each controller action only calls one model method other than an
initial find or new..
I didn't get that article[1] (or, rather, that particular
subarticle) at all.
I kinda tuned out when I read,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:49 AM, Matt Wynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also why is the article so down on STI? What are the drawbacks? What do
people use instead?
I think the guy is really just down on inheritance itself, which is not an
unusual nor even entirely unjustified attitude. Ruby has
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Ashley Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is a better rule each controller action should contain no more than two
branches? (But then, I try to apply that to all methods, and even then, I
try to push conditional code as far down as possible.)
On an OOP mailing
On 26 Sep 2008, at 12:49, Matt Wynne wrote:
Would you mind elaborating on why you don't like these? I'm pretty
new to rails (but not programming generally) and rather naive about
such things!
It's quite hard to explain briefly, but basically it makes the
predicate (interpretation of the
On 26 Sep 2008, at 15:16, Mark Wilden wrote:
Also why is the article so down on STI? What are the drawbacks? What
do people use instead?
One downside to STI is it forces you to leave NULL columns for
attributes that don't exist in all models. This is also really bad
for integrity. I
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Ashley Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
One downside to STI is it forces you to leave NULL columns for attributes
that don't exist in all models. This is also really bad for integrity.
I think all of your comments make sense, but I did just want to call out
On 26 Sep 2008, at 17:28, Mark Wilden wrote:
I think all of your comments make sense, but I did just want to call
out that the Rails way is not typically concerned with this sort
of integrity at the database level. It's handled in the model.
Ah ok, I wasn't sure if your comment was
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Ashley Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(be sure to spec what attributes your classes have if you're scared of
pollution!)
As part of the TDD process, I spec all attributes, but this doesn't seem
universal. Is this a misconception? Do people actually make sure
On Sep 26, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Mark Wilden wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Ashley Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(be sure to spec what attributes your classes have if you're scared
of pollution!)
As part of the TDD process, I spec all attributes, but this doesn't
seem universal.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Scott Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I usually end up doing something like this:
columns = [:email, :message]
columns.each do |column|
it should have a reader and writer for the column #{column} do
@invite.should respond_to(column)
Mark Wilden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:49 AM, Matt Wynne span dir=ltrmailto:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]/span wrote:
Also why is the article so down on STI? What are the drawbacks? What
do people use instead?I think the guy is really just down on
inheritance itself, which is
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Pat Maddox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Wilden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Task class and an
Appointment subclass. An Appointment (in this context) is simply a
Task that can only be performed on one day. Otherwise it#39;s exactly
like a Task (again, in
On Sep 26, 2008, at 6:18 pm, Mark Wilden wrote:
As part of the TDD process, I spec all attributes, but this doesn't
seem universal. Is this a misconception? Do people actually make
sure that all columns exist and can be written to and read from?
What I meant by this was that say you have
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Mark Wilden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Ashley Moran
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(be sure to spec what attributes your classes have if you're scared of
pollution!)
As part of the TDD process, I spec all attributes, but this
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:10 PM, David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Now sometimes there will be some up-front modeling discussions and you
may have a sense that a model needs a specific set of fields just
because that's what the customer says. In those cases, I'd recommend
trying to
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Mark Wilden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:10 PM, David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Now sometimes there will be some up-front modeling discussions and you
may have a sense that a model needs a specific set of fields just
because
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:16 PM, David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
DataMapper, for example, offers auto-migrations. You just add a
property to your model file and it takes care of the migration for
you.
The relationship between schema and models in Rails is weird. The basic
source of
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Mark Wilden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:16 PM, David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DataMapper, for example, offers auto-migrations. You just add a
property to your model file and it takes care of the migration for
you.
The
Hi,
Today is a big day. I officially transitioned from manually testing by
clicking around in my app, to automated testing with RSpec + Autotest.
Yes RSpec made me find a few weaknesses in my app: while I was writing
specs for one of my models, I discovered that I had forgotten some
validations,
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Fernando Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Also, RSpec made me discover something else: my model has some custom
find methods. Often over time I find myself changing the name of these
custom find methods, e.g: find_all_products - find_available_products
As some
45 matches
Mail list logo
