Ok, I spent some time digging through commits and writing tests. The
tests I wrote actually don't have anything to do with reloading
because I couldn't find a recent commit that required any forking or
spawning to test.
http://github.com/Manfred/rails/commits/railties-tests
Josh, can you
Hi,
I've also been worried about the lack of testing present in some
commits lately. ActionPack, and especially the Rack related code, seem
to lack lots of necessary testing.
Afaik the Rails policy used to be; have good test coverage or don't
commit. Has this been changed?
Eloy
On 18 feb
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eloy Duran eloy.de.en...@gmail.com wrote:
I've also been worried about the lack of testing present in some
commits lately. ActionPack, and especially the Rack related code, seem
to lack lots of necessary testing.
Afaik the Rails policy used to be; have good
On Feb 24, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Joshua Peek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eloy Duran
eloy.de.en...@gmail.com wrote:
I've also been worried about the lack of testing present in some
commits lately. ActionPack, and especially the Rack related code,
seem
to lack lots of necessary
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Manfred Stienstra manf...@gmail.com wrote:
My first intuition is to spawn new Rails process from a test and see
if it behaves the way it should. I'll try to free up some time
tomorrow to give it a try.
The tricky part of this would be to ensure that the
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Chad Woolley thewoolley...@gmail.com wrote:
The tricky part of this would be to ensure that the spawned
environment is identical to the current environment. For example,
environment/rake variables, ruby interpreter being used, etc, etc.
That sounds like a job
That sounds like a job for forking.
That makes accumulating the failures from the child process
essentially impossible though, you'd end up with crazy output
intertwined with the parent process.
--
Cheers
Koz
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Michael Koziarski
mich...@koziarski.com wrote:
That sounds like a job for forking.
That makes accumulating the failures from the child process
essentially impossible though, you'd end up with crazy output
intertwined with the parent process.
My assumption
That sounds like a job for forking.
That makes accumulating the failures from the child process
essentially impossible though, you'd end up with crazy output
intertwined with the parent process.
Well, let's just talk code shall we (: I'll write up some stuff and
present it to the
