On 19.01.2009, at 4:18, Phlip wrote:
> It seems someone added if defined?(::Webrat) around ViewHelper. So, > instead of a > clear error message proposing some Webrat (which was already one of > my goals in > this little soirée), we get no view tests at all without it. > That someone was me http://github.com/wycats/merb/commit/1d1cdcacbea508fda84ea4acfa2d05bd3e40b2c1 Merb used to not even start without Webrat before 1.0.8, and it nearly caused a heart attack to a well known person in the Ruby community. We don't want Merb to be that dangerous, so this restriction was removed. To figure out what is wrong, fix it and release 1.0.9 or something, stack trace would help a lot (using gist.github.com or similar service). > I thought Webrat was like HttpUnit - it pulls a web page across the > wire and > then parses its HTML to test it. Why should a _View_ test need that, > if we can > just mock the server and deliver the page to ourself as a string? Webrat is an HTTP client emulator that does not actually do HTTP requests. It is specifically designed to what people use view tests for: * Making sure there are no 5xx responses across the app under "normal" circumstances. * Making sure links that supposed to be visible and accessible are visible and accessible. and more: * Making sure that forms can be submitted, redirects lead where they should and so forth So, Webrat is, roughly saying, a "pure Ruby Selenium that needs no browser". I highly recommend Webrat for request/views testing, but Merb should be able to work without it even installed, and to make that happen, we need a stack trace. MK --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" 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/merb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
