I am interested at least. I use after_commit heavily with resque and database cleaner is slower than transactional fixtures.
On Oct 13, 12:53 am, Will Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > You can turn transaction fixtures off for an individual set of tests though, > and still run the rest of your test suite quickly. > > I was actually asking if anyone wanted after_commit/rollback in their tests a > few days ago, in the thread about transactional fixture bloating. No-one > seemed to be interested though, so I didn't implement it. > > On 13/10/2011, at 10:35 , Gabe da Silveira wrote: > > > > > > > > > Massive overhead in instantiating the fixtures each time. If I were > > to start from scratch I would certainly not depend on a large fixture > > set, but at this point we depend on transactional fixtures for > > performance. > > > On Oct 11, 2:00 pm, Robert Pankowecki <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> What's wrong with turning off transactional fixtures in the tests that > >> check after_commit/after_rollback functionality ? You can check what > >> you need and clean the db yourself in the test or teardown. > > >> Robert Pankowecki > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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-core?hl=en.
