Re: Re: [Rails-core] Clean Functional Tests
Chris Roos
Sounds interesting. I've been doing my own monkey-patching recently
(http://mocha.rubyforge.org/classes/MultipleSetupAndTeardown.html) and
have noticed a couple of other people
(http://www.agilewebdevelopment.com/plugins/testcase_setup_and_teardown_with_blocks
and http://mabs29.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/plugins/active_test/lib/active_test/base.rb)
doing similar things. It would be really good to get support for
multiple setup/teardown methods into the Test::Unit library.
James.
P.S. Apologies if this message is duplicated, I noticed that I sent to
the old list address and am therefore re-sending.
On 8/21/06, Chris Roos <chris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * Posting on behalf of James Mead (james...@gmail.com) *
>
> Sounds interesting. I've been doing my own monkey-patching recently
> (http://mocha.rubyforge.org/classes/MultipleSetupAndTeardown.html) and
> have noticed a couple of other people
> (http://www.agilewebdevelopment.com/plugins/testcase_setup_and_teardown_with_blocks
> and http://mabs29.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/plugins/active_test/lib/active_test/base.rb)
> doing similar things. It would be really good to get support for
> multiple setup/teardown methods into the Test::Unit library.
>
> James.
>
>
> On 8/19/06, Nathaniel Talbott <ntal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/18/06, Keith Morrison <kei...@infused.org> wrote:
> >
> > > You could define a fake test, but then the test and assertion count will
> > > be off.
> >
> > A simple:
> >
> > def default_test
> > end
> >
> > In your abstract test case will prevent the failure, and while you
> > will see an extra test, there will be no assertion inflation.
> >
> > I know that the default_test is pretty much universally hated (Ryan
> > Davis has a colorfully named test method in one of his base classes to
> > prevent it from failing) and I agree that it is/was a bad idea. I'm
> > working on something that I'm hoping will greatly improve the ability
> > for frameworks like Rails to do "frameworky stuff" for testing without
> > completely monkey-patching the testing framework. More details when I
> > have something concrete to show.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nathaniel Talbott
> >
> > <:((><
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-core mailing list
> > Rails...@lists.rubyonrails.org
> > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
> >
>
Jeremy Kemper
* Posting on behalf of James Mead (james...@gmail.com) *
Sounds interesting. I've been doing my own monkey-patching recently
have noticed a couple of other people
(http://www.agilewebdevelopment.com/plugins/testcase_setup_and_teardown_with_blocks
and http://mabs29.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/plugins/active_test/lib/active_test/base.rb)
doing similar things. It would be really good to get support for
multiple setup/teardown methods into the Test::Unit library.
I'd like class methods to declare setup/teardown behavior:
setup :load_fixtures, :begin_transaction
teardown :rollback_transaction
# same with teardown
def self.setup(*methods, &block)
setup_methods.concat(methods)
setup_methods << block if block_given?
end
# unfortunately difficult to override, have to replace wholesale
def run
...
begin
#instead of setup
call_setup_methods
...
ensure
begin
#instead of teardown
call_teardown_methods
...
end
jeremy
Jonathan Viney
http://svn.viney.net.nz/things/rails/plugins/testcase_setup_and_teardown_with_blocks
-Jonathan.
Jeremy Kemper
My plugin allows you to do that. It's a huge hack, but it works for me! As far as I know it is completely backwards compatible.
http://svn.viney.net.nz/things/rails/plugins/testcase_setup_and_teardown_with_blocks
We use the same approach (method_added). I hope test/unit breaks its run method into more digestible chunks to make this unnecessary.
jeremy