On 17 Jul 2010, at 5:43 PM, doug livesey wrote:
> Please tell me they're doing *some*thing, as I'm using S3 storage, which
> would really slow my tests down if I just did nothing.
> I'm starting to think of all sorts of horrible solutions, like making the
> storage strategy dependent on the env
On 17 Jul 2010, at 5:58 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:
> You don't need to test Paperclip's ability to put files to S3
It depends on your confidence in Paperclip (s/Paperclip/X random library) and
the severity of problem it could cause if it doesn't work. To me, at least,
it's more a risk/value ju
I was wary of taking an approach like that, as it feels a little like test
code bleeding into production code, but the sheer number of problems I'm
having trying another way tells me that I'm very inadvisedly swimming
against the stream, here.
So I think I'll rethink my strategy & try something mor
One of the things that you learn after testing for a while is "what to
test." You don't need to test Paperclip's ability to put files to S3; that's
what Paperclip's internal tests are for. So what I do is this:
http://gist.github.com/479647
When I'm developing locally or testing, I just write fil
Hi -- I'm running into all sorts of difficulties trying to use paperclip
with cucumber and rspec.
Basically, I'm stubbing out paperclip calls with WebMock (I've adapted the
shoulda macro that uses FakeWeb to do this).
But every time I get things running smoothly, something else pops up to
screw t
