I really like the shell which comes with roo (java webframe inspired
by rails). it is interactive with autocomplete so it is easy to "find"
the right command and after each command there is a hint what is
possible next. I am sure there are other things to learn from.
http://www.springsource.org/ro
I find your propose too verbose to my taste :P
But I'm sure others will like your idea. :)
I think that an alternative interface to the command-line old fashioned
(and good by the way ;) ) prompt, would be being able to change this
defaults through the web interface.
For instance, "rails con
On Sep 1, 10:30 am, Chad Woolley wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Michael Breen wrote:
> > Rails doesn't really ship with any testing framework. It defaults to what's
> > in Ruby core, which is Test/Unit in 1.8 and MiniTest in 1.9.
>
> * Rails ships with Ruby test generators (because t
I always thought that something like that would be good, but too old
fashioned.
An idea of mine (that I could never even start developing [shame on me]
until now) was a gem called rails-make
The intent is to do something like that:
rails make my js test framework to jasmine
rails make my js test
Hi Koz,
I'm not sure if that is the best approach. Choosing a default is not
about choosing the winner. Is Test/Unit the winner over Rspec? Different
people will have different opinions about the winner. But they don't
complain about Rspec not being the default one. Nor Rspec lost its momentum
We use qunit to test jquery-ujs, for what its worth.
-Steve Schwartz (@jangosteve)
On Sep 1, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote:
On Friday, 2 September 2011 at 9:23 AM, Trek Glowacki wrote:
I think the appropriate question to ask is "of Rails developers
unit testing their javascript,
On Friday, 2 September 2011 at 9:23 AM, Trek Glowacki wrote:
> I think the appropriate question to ask is "of Rails developers unit testing
> their javascript, who is *not* using Jasmine"
>
> I definitely get the impression that
> * most people are not unit testing their javascript application c
I think the appropriate question to ask is "of Rails developers unit testing
their javascript, who is *not* using Jasmine"
I definitely get the impression that
* most people are not unit testing their javascript application code, instead
relying on integration tests to catch errors
* among thos
> One of Rails' many opinionated innovations as a framework was that
> testing is good, everyone should do it by default, so test code is
> included/generated by the framework. I believe it should be just as
> opinionated about Javascript testing.
+1 to TDD for js, and +1 to Jasmine - I've been t
Now that the rails command is getting lots of options, maybe it would
make sense to have some "rails interactive" command. Some possible workflow:
What do you want to do?
1- Create a new Rails application
2- Run server
3- Generate a migration
4- Generate a model
...
Suppose you click 1:
1- Cr
+1 for evergreen
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Sep 2011, at 16:45, Jonas Nicklas wrote:
> Definitely +1 for Jasmine
>
> It's easily the best test framework for JavaScript. I wrote a wrapper
> around it called Evergreen, which has gained a little traction. You
> should check it out for inspiration I
Definitely +1 for Jasmine
It's easily the best test framework for JavaScript. I wrote a wrapper
around it called Evergreen, which has gained a little traction. You
should check it out for inspiration I think, since it does a lot of
things very differently than most other similar libraries. I think
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Everton Moreth wrote:
> I agree with Rodrigo, it should be optional, but when the Rails Community
> takes its choice in supporting anything, it gets attention, people start to
> use it, and even the framework itself gets better.
>
> Also, we really should ease the n
I agree with Rodrigo, it should be optional, but when the Rails Community
takes its choice in supporting anything, it gets attention, people start to
use it, and even the framework itself gets better.
Also, we really should ease the new developers life in pointing which
framework to use when start
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Michael Breen wrote:
> Rails doesn't really ship with any testing framework. It defaults to what's
> in Ruby core, which is Test/Unit in 1.8 and MiniTest in 1.9.
* Rails ships with Ruby test generators (because testing is good)
* Rails ships with Javascript/Coffee
I'm having a similar problem, I'm upgrading an engine to 3.1 and all
my routing specs are red.
Is there a way to debug/print out the generated engine routes? When
running rake routes from my dummy app I can't see the expanded routes,
all I see is mything / {:to=>MyThing::Engine}.
On Aug 11, 4:14
On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
> When you do that, it would be similar to not adding tests on generators or
> not providing Coffeescript or SASS support in a default new Rails application.
>
> I doubt Coffeescript would be largely used if not included in Rails by
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
