[Chirb] tools, already in play and coming soon

[Nate Kirby]

Jake,

Did this blogging ever take place?  I am also quite interested. 

Does UnitRecord play nice with Story Runner?

Blessings,
Nate

Ryan Platte wrote:
> Go for it, Jake. I'm interested to see what you'll write.
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Jake Scruggs <jake.scruggs at gmail.com 
> <mailto:jake.scruggs at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I haven't had any problems with NullDB, but failing silently is
>     its thing (Null Object Pattern and all) so be careful.  I think
>     the tagging bit you describe as coming soon to RSpec is pretty cool.
>
>     I'm probably going to blog about this soon and will quote some
>     things from Ryan and David's responses -- unless of course either
>     of you object.
>     -Jake
>
>
>     On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:08 AM, David Chelimsky
>     <dchelimsky at gmail.com <mailto:dchelimsky at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hey Jake - thanks for sharing this. Couple o' comments below:
>
>         On Jun 11, 2008, at 9:26 AM, Jake Scruggs wrote:
>>         I've been using the NullDb
>>         (http://agilewebdevelopment.com/plugins/nulldb) plugin to
>>         disconnect RSpec from the database.
>
>         The only drawback I've heard about NullDb is that it fails
>         silently in certain cases - has led to some painful debugging.
>         Have you had that experience?
>
>>         I don't like the global disconnect (for all specs everywhere)
>>         that the web page suggests, so I set up this in my spec_helper:
>>
>>         describe "Unit Spec", :shared => true do
>>           before :all do
>>             ActiveRecord::Base.establish_connection(:adapter => :nulldb)
>>           end
>>
>>           after :all do
>>             ActiveRecord::Base.establish_connection(:test)
>>           end
>>         end
>>
>>         and then say this inside any describe block I want to
>>         disconnect from the db:
>>
>>         require File.dirname(__FILE__) + "/../spec_helper"
>>
>>         describe User do
>>           it_should_behave_like "Unit Spec"
>
>         This is cool that it works, but using it_should_behave_like
>         feels odd to me in this case. The User should not behave like
>         a Unit Spec, the examples should be disconnected.
>
>         You can do this instead if you like:
>
>         share_as :Disconnected do
>
>           before :all do
>             ActiveRecord::Base.establish_connection(:adapter => :nulldb)
>           end
>
>           after :all do
>             ActiveRecord::Base.establish_connection(:test)
>           end
>         end
>
>         describe User do
>           include Disconnected
>         ...
>
>         Right now we don't have an arbitrary tagging mechanism but
>         it's something we've talked about. This gives me an idea that
>         I'd like to implement, and everything is pretty much in place
>         to support this, where the options hash is available to you in
>         the before and after blocks, so you could do this (CAREFUL -
>         THIS DOES NOT WORK TODAY):
>
>         Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
>           config.before(:all)
>             if example_group_options[:disconnected]
>               ActiveRecord::Base.establish_connection(:adapter => :nulldb)
>             end
>           end
>           config.after(:all)
>             if example_group_options[:disconnected]
>               ActiveRecord::Base.establish_connection(:test)
>             end
>           end
>         end
>
>         Then you'd be able to say:
>
>         describe User, :disconnected => true do
>           ...
>
>         WDYT about that?
>
>         Cheers,
>         David
>
>
>
>>
>>         .
>>         .
>>         .
>>
>>         using nested describes to separate my unit (don't hit the db)
>>         from my functional (do hit the db) specs
>>
>>         -Jake
>>
>>         On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Ryan Platte
>>         <ryan at platte.name <mailto:ryan at platte.name>> wrote:
>>
>>             Here are some Rake tasks I created to use RSpec with
>>             UnitRecord. I set the default task to first run
>>             spec:fast, then spec:slow, so if the fast ones fail we
>>             don't have to wait on the slow ones to set up and run.
>>
>>             The fly in the ointment is that schema.rb has to be current.
>>
>>             namespace :spec do
>>
>>               desc "Run all fast specs in spec directory (excluding
>>             plugin specs)"
>>               Spec::Rake::SpecTask.new(:fast) do |t|
>>                 t.spec_opts = ['--options',
>>             "\"#{RAILS_ROOT}/spec/spec.opts\""]
>>                 t.spec_files = FileList['spec/**/*_fast_spec.rb']
>>                 #t.ruby_opts = ['-r spec/spec_helper', '-rubygems',
>>             '-runit_record', "-e 'ActiveRecord::Base.disconnect!'"]
>>               end
>>
>>               desc "Run all non-fast specs in spec directory
>>             (excluding plugin specs)"
>>               Spec::Rake::SpecTask.new(:slow => spec_prereq) do |t|
>>                 t.spec_opts = ['--options',
>>             "\"#{RAILS_ROOT}/spec/spec.opts\""]
>>                 t.spec_files =
>>             FileList['spec/**/*_spec.rb'].exclude('spec/**/*_fast_spec.rb')
>>               end
>>
>>             end
>>
>>
>>             On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:36 AM, David Chelimsky
>>             <dchelimsky at gmail.com <mailto:dchelimsky at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>                 On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:31 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>                     Hey Chirb,
>>
>>
>>                     Lastly, I may have mis-spoke about rails loading
>>                     up columns from schema.rb - I'm looking into it
>>                     and will follow up when I learn the truth. So
>>                     Ryan - keep using unit-record for now :)
>>
>>
>>                 I definitely mis-spoke. I don't know where I got that
>>                 in my head, but it seems I did.
>>
>>                 I don't recall who said it, but unit_record does the
>>                 column caching I thought rails did. So now it's off
>>                 to figure out how to get rspec to play nice w/
>>                 unit_record.
>>
>>                 More soon.
>>
>>
>>                 Cheers,
>>                 David
>>                 _______________________________________________
>>                 ChicagoGroup-Members-List at rubyforge.org
>>                 <mailto:ChicagoGroup-Members-List at rubyforge.org>
>>                 http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/chicagogroup-members-list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             -- 
>>             Ryan Platte
>>             _______________________________________________
>>             ChicagoGroup-Members-List at rubyforge.org
>>             <mailto:ChicagoGroup-Members-List at rubyforge.org>
>>             http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/chicagogroup-members-list
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         ChicagoGroup-Members-List at rubyforge.org
>>         <mailto:ChicagoGroup-Members-List at rubyforge.org>
>>         http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/chicagogroup-members-list
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         ChicagoGroup-Members-List at rubyforge.org
>         <mailto:ChicagoGroup-Members-List at rubyforge.org>
>         http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/chicagogroup-members-list
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     ChicagoGroup-Members-List at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:ChicagoGroup-Members-List at rubyforge.org>
>     http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/chicagogroup-members-list
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Ryan Platte
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ChicagoGroup-Members-List at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/chicagogroup-members-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/chicagogroup-members-list/attachments/20080619/126f9e59/attachment-0001.html>