Forum: RSpec Caboosers drop RSpec

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Tom S. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 12:08
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,

Any responses to
http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2008/11/4/we-ve-stop...
  ? How much of this is due to legitimate bugs/problems versus
unfortunate circumstances? Feels kind of worrying that they haven't
been able to make it work for them.

Cheers,
-Tom
Luis L. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 13:18
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Tom S. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
> Hi,
>

> Any responses to
> http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2008/11/4/we-ve-stop... ? How much
> of this is due to legitimate bugs/problems versus unfortunate circumstances?
> Feels kind of worrying that they haven't been able to make it work for them.

<sarcasm>Oh my, the end of world is near!</sarcasm>

The gem dependency is a real problem. Coming from the Windows world
where we have to deal with DLL inter-dependency and loading issues, we
are quite familiar with these issues (not having the gem/library in
the server, loading it break other tasks, etc).

What is missing from the config.gem concept is the possibility to
specify the context in which these gems get loaded.

Why you need RSpec in production? why is that being loaded?

Even if you define rspec and rspec gems as your application
dependencies, they shouldn't be forced on *every* environment, which
is the root of these issues.

Other issues like specs not being executed I can agree on that, I
found sometimes some before(:each) do not run, and sometimes they
do... when tried to track that down, the problem disappeared.

>From that I have plenty of stories, but any application or tool of the
size of RSpec have these issues.

Take for example Test::Unit... is a 3K lines of code beast. mini-unit
from Ryan D. is around 600 lines and do the same stuff, much more
faster, and besides the war at ruby-core about it, I don't hear anyone
ranting about the beast it is.

So: the defacto vs. the newcomer. The full of classes and
unpronounceable methods names vs. the descriptive ones.

Pick your framework.

--
Luis L.
AREA 17
-
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams
aslak hellesoy (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 15:27
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Tom S. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any responses to
> http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2008/11/4/we-ve-stop... ? How much
> of this is due to legitimate bugs/problems versus unfortunate circumstances?
> Feels kind of worrying that they haven't been able to make it work for them.
>

I wish people would seek out the developers (mailing list, bug
tracker) before they go out and whine. See my comment in the blog
post.

Aslak
Ashley M. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 16:13
(Received via mailing list)
On 4 Nov 2008, at 13:25, aslak hellesoy wrote:

> I wish people would seek out the developers (mailing list, bug
> tracker) before they go out and whine. See my comment in the blog
> post.


RSpec seems to be a victim of "when I do BDD wrong, RSpec makes my
tests fragile/confusing/verbose, so I'll use something else and then I
must be doing BDD right".

There's a BarCamp in my area soon[1], which will have quite a lot of
Rubyists (not that that's essential).  Maybe there'd be some merit in
offering a "How to diagnose BDD problems from spec problems" session?

If that sounds like something worth doing let me know.  Not that
anyone here would attend (apart from Rahoul, maybe, he's the only
person I know here that is local to me), but I could gather ideas, and
post the slides back later.

Ashley

[1] http://barcampsheffield.net/


--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://aviewfromafar.net/
Steven B. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 16:47
(Received via mailing list)
> Subject: [rspec-users] Caboosers drop RSpec

The subject is wrong too; Caboosers didn't drop RSpec.  Two people
from caboose dropped RSpec.  Most of the caboosers I know are still
using RSpec.

> Any responses to http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2008/11/4/we-ve-stop...
>  ? How much of this is due to legitimate bugs/problems versus
> unfortunate circumstances? Feels kind of worrying that they haven't
> been able to make it work for them.

Big difference between "haven't been able to" and "wouldn't learn the
tools".  Ashley's post below sums it up best.  This is a problem
that's seen regularly when working with new ideas.  How many times
have you seen Agile blamed when a project fails due to poor
management?  I personally see this all the time.

A poor craftsman blames his tools.

I don't get upset when people stop using RSpec, but I do get rather
upset when people blame it because they mis-used it.  The caboose post
just seems to justify this kind of behaviour.  Notice the first
comment, which says:

 From Patrick Reagan: "We liked the BDD-style syntax and context, but
found that it gave a false sense of security when it came to doing
functional testing because the views were completely separated from
the controllers under test."

Patrick completely misses the point.  He had bad examples (which are
worse than no examples at all) and blames RSpec because he doesn't
understand BDD.  This isn't just BDD, decoupling is one of the
benefits realized by the original TDD folks, and he's saying "No, I
want my separate objects to be coupled tightly because it's less
work."  The tight coupling is actually what gives the false sense of
security.

-Steven
Zach D. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 17:00
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Steven B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:
>
> I don't get upset when people stop using RSpec, but I do get rather upset when people 
blame it because they mis-used it.  The caboose post just seems to justify this kind of 
behaviour.  Notice the first comment, which says:
>
> From Patrick Reagan: "We liked the BDD-style syntax and context, but found that it gave 
a false sense of security when it came to doing functional testing because the views were 
completely separated from the controllers under test."
>
> Patrick completely misses the point.  He had bad examples (which are worse than no 
examples at all) and blames RSpec because he doesn't understand BDD.  This isn't just BDD, 
decoupling is one of the benefits realized by the original TDD folks, and he's saying "No, 
I want my separate objects to be coupled tightly because it's less work."  The tight 
coupling is actually what gives the false sense of security.
>
> -Steven

I agree with your thoughts and sentiments Steven.

--
Zach D.
http://www.continuousthinking.com
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com
Zach D. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 17:00
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:25 AM, aslak hellesoy
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> tracker) before they go out and whine. See my comment in the blog
> post.
>

I completely agree.

--
Zach D.
http://www.continuousthinking.com
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com
Ashley M. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 17:25
(Received via mailing list)
On 4 Nov 2008, at 14:37, Steven B. wrote:

> The subject is wrong too; Caboosers didn't drop RSpec.  Two people
> from caboose dropped RSpec.  Most of the caboosers I know are still
> using RSpec.

Sadly this one has legs and is running wild:

http://www.rubyflow.com/items/1131

Never let the facts get it the way of a good headline?

Ashley

--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://aviewfromafar.net/
Ashley M. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 17:29
(Received via mailing list)
On 4 Nov 2008, at 15:13, Ashley M. wrote:

> Never let the facts get it the way of a good headline?


in even

--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://aviewfromafar.net/
Fernando P. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 17:32
> A poor craftsman blames his tools.
>
And the poor toolmaker blames the craftsman for being too stupid to
understand how to use his tools.

You say these guys should have come over and posted to this mailing-list
or submitted bugs. But when I read the posts here, most of the time,
when someone has a problem he gets pointed to the unfriendly
documentation pages or worse, the very thin docs available at github.

That doesn't really motivate people to share their experiences with
RSpec, and when they do, rspec supporters treat them as "whiners".
Steven B. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 17:36
(Received via mailing list)
>> Never let the facts get it the way of a good headline?

This is typical of rubyflow.  I wouldn't worry about it too much.

It was only a matter of time before the unfortunate political climate
of the Rails community started bleeding into our party.

Please don't let this get in the way of learning and making use of
good practices, people.

-Steven
aslak hellesoy (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 17:42
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Steven B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:
>>> Never let the facts get it the way of a good headline?
>
> This is typical of rubyflow.  I wouldn't worry about it too much.
>
> It was only a matter of time before the unfortunate political climate
> of the Rails community started bleeding into our party.
>
> Please don't let this get in the way of learning and making use of
> good practices, people.
>

exactly. DNFTT
kthxbye
Luis L. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 17:58
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Fernando P. 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:
>> A poor craftsman blames his tools.
>>
> And the poor toolmaker blames the craftsman for being too stupid to
> understand how to use his tools.
>
> You say these guys should have come over and posted to this mailing-list
> or submitted bugs. But when I read the posts here, most of the time,
> when someone has a problem he gets pointed to the unfriendly
> documentation pages or worse, the very thin docs available at github.
>

Oh, your statement is wrong.

There are plenty of threads in this list, and also rspec-devel that
span across 20 or 30 messages to help other users solve RSpec issues
or deal with BDD concepts.

Pat, Ashley, David and Aslak give quite share of their time answering
those emails, do a search and you will find out.

> That doesn't really motivate people to share their experiences with
> RSpec, and when they do, rspec supporters treat them as "whiners".

A whiner can recognize other whiners, I love to whine about things
(and rant about them too), but I first came to the list, ask, and when
noone answers, *then* I whine.

Given a problem I have with RSpec
And I post to the mailing list
When noone answer my post
And has been N days since I posted
Then I start whining in my blog about it

--
Luis L.
AREA 17
-
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams
Nick H. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 18:10
(Received via mailing list)
On 2008-11-04, at 10:32, Fernando P. wrote:
> You say these guys should have come over and posted to this mailing-
> list
> or submitted bugs. But when I read the posts here, most of the time,
> when someone has a problem he gets pointed to the unfriendly
> documentation pages or worse, the very thin docs available at github.

Hey there Fernando. I read about 80% of the emails on this ML, and
find that most people are incredibly helpful, and devote a lot of
their time to answering other peoples' questions and problems.
Occasionally a question will be answered concisely with a URL, but
that's usually when the question has been answered several times
already, and the answer is explained well at the given URL.

I couldn't be happier with the suggestions, feedback and help that
I've received on this ML. You should check out some of the longer
threads to see how dedicated the people here are to helping others.

Cheers,
Nick
Stephen E. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 18:11
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Luis L. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Fernando P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
>>
>> But when I read the posts here, most of the time,
>> when someone has a problem he gets pointed to the unfriendly
>> documentation pages or worse, the very thin docs available at github.
>
> Oh, your statement is wrong.

Not all of it.  The list is pretty helpful, sure, but the
documentation _could_ stand for a lot of improvement.  I find it very
opaque, too, especially from a "Getting Started" perspective. There
are posts and slideshows scattered all over the blogosphere, but
finding them isn't straightforward.  I know there's a book coming, but
it ain't here yet.  And the Peepcode videos are good (they're how I
learned) but to watch all of the RSpec ones is over four hours.  Also
nearly forty bucks or an annual subscription.

It's something I've been poking at a bit, though haven't had the time
yet to bring things together.  So I identify myself as part of the
problem too.  I could communicate what little _I_ know about RSpec...
But I haven't yet.


> Pat, Ashley, David and Aslak give quite share of their time answering
> those emails, do a search and you will find out.

That's not a replacement for good documentation.  You have to have a
certain grounding before you can even figure out where to go and what
questions to ask -- and I don't feel the most visible resources for
that grounding are as good as they could be.


--
Have Fun,
   Steve E. (removed_email_address@domain.invalid)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org
Luis L. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 18:26
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Stephen E. 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> documentation _could_ stand for a lot of improvement.  I find it very
> opaque, too, especially from a "Getting Started" perspective. There
> are posts and slideshows scattered all over the blogosphere, but
> finding them isn't straightforward.  I know there's a book coming, but
> it ain't here yet.  And the Peepcode videos are good (they're how I
> learned) but to watch all of the RSpec ones is over four hours.  Also
> nearly forty bucks or an annual subscription.

Neither Rails was the one with best documentation (which btw I wonder
what happened with the caboose documentation project they collected
12K, anyway).

I don't see any "tutorial" on internet for starting with XP, or either
Scrum, or anything like that... took them years to evolve and be able
to produce a book.

Until then, you have mailing lists and blog posts to share the
knowledge.

> It's something I've been poking at a bit, though haven't had the time
> yet to bring things together.  So I identify myself as part of the
> problem too.  I could communicate what little _I_ know about RSpec...
> But I haven't yet.
>

Welcome aboard, we are share the guilty part.

>
>> Pat, Ashley, David and Aslak give quite share of their time answering
>> those emails, do a search and you will find out.
>
> That's not a replacement for good documentation.  You have to have a
> certain grounding before you can even figure out where to go and what
> questions to ask -- and I don't feel the most visible resources for
> that grounding are as good as they could be.
>

And what ranting and whining provides?

--
Luis L.
AREA 17
-
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams
Matt W. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 18:29
(Received via mailing list)
On 4 Nov 2008, at 16:09, Stephen E. wrote:
>> Pat, Ashley, David and Aslak give quite share of their time answering
>> those emails, do a search and you will find out.
>
> That's not a replacement for good documentation.  You have to have a
> certain grounding before you can even figure out where to go and what
> questions to ask -- and I don't feel the most visible resources for
> that grounding are as good as they could be.

This is a point I've made before (and David has rightly pointed me at
the source of the rspec.info website), but I'm now so immersed in
RSpec myself I would find it hard to see the gaps in the
documentation, I think. Plus I'm lazy, and, y'know, busy at work.

I almost wonder whether it would be worth ripping up the rspec.info
site and pointing everyone at the github wiki, then putting some real
effort into making that as good as it can be.

Just a thought.

cheers,
Matt
Bart Z. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 18:47
(Received via mailing list)
On 4-nov-2008, at 17:20, Matt W. wrote:

> This is a point I've made before (and David has rightly pointed me
> at the source of the rspec.info website), but I'm now so immersed
> in RSpec myself I would find it hard to see the gaps in the
> documentation, I think. Plus I'm lazy, and, y'know, busy at work.
>
> I almost wonder whether it would be worth ripping up the rspec.info
> site and pointing everyone at the github wiki, then putting some
> real effort into making that as good as it can be.

That would be a good idea. No more rspec.info and
rspec.rubyforge.net, but just github and The Book. The Book would be
nice.. Already have an empty slot reserved on my bookshelf ;)

cheers,
bartz
Zach D. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 18:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Bart Z.
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>> questions to ask -- and I don't feel the most visible resources for
>
> That would be a good idea. No more rspec.info and rspec.rubyforge.net, but
> just github and The Book. The Book would be nice.. Already have an empty
> slot reserved on my bookshelf ;)
>

Your real bookshelf, or your Shelfari one? :)

http://www.shelfari.com/

--
Zach D.
http://www.continuousthinking.com
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com
Mike G. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 19:26
(Received via mailing list)
On Nov 4, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Luis L. wrote:

> Neither Rails was the one with best documentation (which btw I wonder
> what happened with the caboose documentation project they collected
> 12K, anyway).

Tangential to this discussion, but anyhow: some of that money is going
into the Rails Guides hackfest right now. Rails docs can always use
improvement (as can RSpec's - and I say that as a committed RSpec user
who is still confused too much of the time), but we're making
progress, I think.
Luis L. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 19:34
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Mike G. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:
>
Actually I didn't know about it, sometimes lot of that stuff get lost
between links.

We are all still confused with RSpec, is hard when you need to jump
from Test::Unit, NUnit and other testing frameworks back and forth (at
least for me).

What about something like the merb book? I know David cannot
participate on it, but others can and we should bring the basic and
advance techniques from blog posts and the mailing list to that
document.

--
Luis L.
AREA 17
-
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams
court3nay (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 19:44
(Received via mailing list)
On Nov 4, 5:25 am, "aslak hellesoy" <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
> post.
>

Well, I didn't think we were whining.  I've been using rSpec since the
early days, have contributed code and bug reports back (our team has
built plugins around rspec too).  We have more than 30 active projects
in production built with rSpec.. tens (hundreds?) of thousands of
lines of test code.. it's been the best choice for us, so far, and
obviously I'm not planning on throwing that out.  It's really not a
case of "waah, waah, rspec sucks", even if you want to hear it that
way.

However, in my opinion the upgrade path should not be difficult, and
the ability to have development tools (rspec) not checked into the
code base for production deployment (config.gems in test.rb) is
important to me.  So when we upgraded and versions started leaking
between apps and specs start failing mysteriously for some developers
and not others, we started casting about for something simpler and/or
better.   I don't want to be fighting my tools, I want them to be
working with me.. I don't want to start getting weird failures from an
upgrade.  It might well be bugs in Rails not rSpec, but if the only
thing that changed was rSpec, well, you see my problem.  In my mind
rspec has a long history of breaking things between versions.

My blog post was an honest attempt at finding out what the wider
community is using -- why, how -- for their testing needs. I'm not
going to find that on the rspec-users mailing list.  And, yes, it is
obvious that many of the commenters don't understand how to use rSpec.

Courtenay
Matt W. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 20:00
(Received via mailing list)
On 4 Nov 2008, at 17:32, court3nay wrote:
> upgrade.  It might well be bugs in Rails not rSpec, but if the only
> thing that changed was rSpec, well, you see my problem.  In my mind
> rspec has a long history of breaking things between versions.

If this is a common complaint, do we maybe need some better
*acceptance tests* for rspec - some cucumber scripts which cover use
cases like upgrades? How possible would that be to achieve?

cheers,
Matt
Pat M. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 20:08
(Received via mailing list)
Fernando P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> writes:

> That doesn't really motivate people to share their experiences with
> RSpec, and when they do, rspec supporters treat them as "whiners".

hrm...I'm not going to argue with your experience, but I will say that
mine has shown the complete opposite.  The RSpec list is a damn good one
in my opinion, thanks to people like David, Aslak, Ben, Scott, Ashley,
Matt, Joseph...and those are just a few off the top of my head.  We've
got a good little community here, and I'm proud to be a part of it.
It's unfortunate that others have a less enjoyable experience than I
have - what can we do to fix that?

As far as the linked article goes, well, we're all trying to create
great software.  If something is keeping you from doing that, you either
fix it or look somewhere else.  And it's important to recognize that
either choice is okay - we all have limited amounts of time and energy.

Pat
Pat M. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 20:09
(Received via mailing list)
"Stephen E." <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> writes:
> The list is pretty helpful, sure, but the
> documentation _could_ stand for a lot of improvement.

Agree 100%.  Got a git repo I can pull from? :)

Pat
Fernando P. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 21:44
As a starter, can someone tell me if the specs defined in
restful_authentication are clever? Can I learn from them?

Because right now I find them overwhelming, complicated, over-testing,
etc.

Does anyone know of a good app with specs I could learn from? It always
makes me laugh to think about all the good things people say about TDD,
and if I take for instance Spree (a Ror ecommerce website), well the
specs are almost not defined at all, whereas the code is present.
Ben M. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 22:03
(Received via mailing list)
Fernando P. wrote:
> As a starter, can someone tell me if the specs defined in
> restful_authentication are clever? Can I learn from them?
>

Please don't look at restful_auth as an example on how to use rspec
examples and/or the story runner.  The stories in particular are very
brittle.
> Because right now I find them overwhelming, complicated, over-testing,
> etc.
>
Yeah, they go a little overboard with keeping the specs DRY which
results IMO hard to follow specs.  They also test private methods
directly and some other things which are TDD smells.
> Does anyone know of a good app with specs I could learn from? It always
> makes me laugh to think about all the good things people say about TDD,
> and if I take for instance Spree (a Ror ecommerce website), well the
> specs are almost not defined at all, whereas the code is present.
>



Hmm.. I've heard good things about Radiant (the CMS) but I haven't
looked too closely myself.  Also, the rspec code base itself is a very
good place to learn from.  I think there are plenty of open-source tools
that use rspec that you can learn from but I can't seem to think of many
open-source rails apps with stellar examples.

I have been thinking for a while that a worthwhile project would be to
fork restful_auth and add some clearer code examples (specs) and
Cucumber features.  Since so many rails developers start out with
restful auth it would be a good way to illustrate some good rspec
guidelines.  Alas, I have been think this for a while but have done
nothing... It has been one of those things on my endless OSS TODO lists.

-Ben
Jim G. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 23:04
(Received via mailing list)
On Nov 4, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Ben M. wrote:

>>
> Hmm.. I've heard good things about Radiant (the CMS) but I haven't
> looked too closely myself.

Don't look too closely. There's lots of coverage, but the tests were
converted from Test::Unit, so it wasn't done in traditional BDD, but
we're moving to clear up the behavior descriptions which are
lackluster. They'll be getting better.
I have a branch where I'm trying to clear this up, but I've not worked
on it in weeks (and it lags behind edge as a result)
http://github.com/saturnflyer/radiant/tree/spec

Perhaps this'll be the impetus to get it going again.
Fernando P. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 23:05
Thank you Ben, my doubts about restful_auth specs have been confirmed.

I think having a good solid Rails app, with well written specs to learn
from is what prevents its adoption. I myself have got pissed a thousand
times not knowing how to write a spec for a very simple piece of code.
So I simply write code and don't care about testing it as I don't know
how to test it.

I would have one piece of advice to give: please remove rcov. This thing
entices people to write shit loads of useless specs. 100% code coverage
of poorly written specs doesn't prevent bugs nor does it guaranty secure
code, so please trash it.

I would like to know: does anyone in this mailing-list actually never
ever writes a single line of code before having written its spec(s)? In
other words: do you fully comply to TDD or do you sometimes break the
rules?
Matt W. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 23:25
(Received via mailing list)
On 4 Nov 2008, at 21:05, Fernando P. wrote:
> I would like to know: does anyone in this mailing-list actually never
> ever writes a single line of code before having written its spec(s)?
> In
> other words: do you fully comply to TDD or do you sometimes break the
> rules?

As a friend of mine said recently, "you have to be dogmatic for a
while to learn when it's OK to be pragmatic". But that's just his
opinion:
http://www.nabble.com/Working-outside-in-with-Cucu...
Pat M. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 23:28
(Received via mailing list)
Fernando P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> writes:

> As a starter, can someone tell me if the specs defined in
> restful_authentication are clever? Can I learn from them?
>
> Because right now I find them overwhelming, complicated, over-testing,
> etc.

I don't even use restful_auth, precisely because I thought the specs
sucked.  I remember checking it out, running the specs and stories and
there were like 400 specs and 60 stories or something.  It was like wtf
isn't this thing just doing authentication?

I've been working on giternal [1] a bit lately, which has specs and
cucumber features.  It's not the greatest thing in the world, but it's a
lot more accessible than restful_auth I think.  It's also been pretty
interesting to me, sometimes if I'm having trouble writing a story, I
try a lower-level example and it's trivial, and vice-versa.

Pat
Ben M. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 23:32
(Received via mailing list)
Pat M. wrote:
> I don't even use restful_auth, precisely because I thought the specs
> Pat
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> removed_email_address@domain.invalid
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
I believe Pat meant to add this reference at the bottom of his email: :)

[1] http://github.com/pat-maddox/giternal/tree/master
Pat M. (Guest)
on 2008-11-04 23:54
(Received via mailing list)
Ben M. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> writes:

>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> removed_email_address@domain.invalid
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

See what a great community we have!!
Dr Nic (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 01:18
(Received via mailing list)
On Nov 5, 1:55 am, "Luis L." <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Given a problem I have with RSpec
> And I post to the mailing list
> When noone answer my post
> And has been N days since I posted
> Then I start whining in my blog about it

I'm still learning the ways of cucumber, though I think this could/
should be:

Given a problem I have with RSpec
When I post to the RSpec mailing list
And noone answers my post after 10 days
Then I start whining in my blog about RSpec

:P
Ashley M. (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 02:03
(Received via mailing list)
On Nov 04, 2008, at 11:09 pm, Dr Nic wrote:

> Given a problem I have with RSpec
> When I post to the RSpec mailing list
> And noone answers my post after 10 days
> Then I start whining in my blog about RSpec


Meh, you are both amateurs at whine-driven development.  Please observe:

Given a problem I have with RSpec
When I post to the RSpec mailing list
And noone answers my post after 10 days
Then I start whining in my blog about RSpec

More Examples:
| days since post | whining medium |
|       0.1       |    Twitter     |
|       0.2       |    Facebook    |
|       2         |    Ruby Flow   |
|       5         |   Ruby Forum   |
|      20         |    Slashdot    |
|      50         |     YouTube    |

To think of Aslak's hard work going to waste...

(Bonus points for anyone who noticed that "YouTube" should be in the
"slow-running" feature set and that "Slashdot" must be run with
grammar checking disabled.)

--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://aviewfromafar.net/
Andrew B. (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 02:10
(Received via mailing list)
Did this person the mailing list first?
aslak hellesoy (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 02:13
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ashley M.
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>
>
> |       5         |   Ruby Forum   |
> |      20         |    Slashdot    |
> |      50         |     YouTube    |
>
> To think of Aslak's hard work going to waste...
>

Hahaha. That made me laugh out loud.
Luis L. (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 11:59
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Dr Nic <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
> Given a problem I have with RSpec
> When I post to the RSpec mailing list
> And noone answers my post after 10 days
> Then I start whining in my blog about RSpec
>
> :P

Oh, let's put RSpec between quotes, so we can reuse the steps to whine
about other projects too.

Given a problem I have with 'Rails'
When I post to the 'Rails' mailing list
And noone answe my post after 2 days
Then I start whining in my blog about 'Rails'

;-)

Thanks Dr. Nic, your Scenarios from newgem inspired me to draw the
lines for rake-compiler gem ;-)

Regards
--
Luis L.
AREA 17
-
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams
Alex S. (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 13:27
(Received via mailing list)
On 05/11/2008, at 01:37 , Steven B. wrote:

> Big difference between "haven't been able to" and "wouldn't learn
> the tools".  Ashley's post below sums it up best.  This is a problem
> that's seen regularly when working with new ideas.  How many times
> have you seen Agile blamed when a project fails due to poor
> management?  I personally see this all the time.

Personally, the first question on my mind was why they weren't using
separate environments for each of their production applications.

I'm learning Django at the moment, which is kinda like a Python-on-
Rails wannabe. The most useful tool I've come across recently has been
"virtualenv" which basically takes your system-installed environment,
copies it (including the specific version of the Python interpreter)
into a stand-alone environment, then sets the path for Python
libraries appropriately. Then when you go messing with the environment
(adding new third-party software) it only affects that specific
virtual environment.

A similar thing in the Mac OS X world of Ruby on Rails programming is
Locomotive. I love Locomotive.

I can't understand why people who are serious about production
environment stability would install multiple applications in the same
environment. It's not healthy.

Alex
Fernando P. (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 14:51
> I'm learning Django at the moment, which is kinda like a Python-on-
> Rails wannabe.

Just to clear things out. Django is absolutely not a Python-on-Rails
wannabe. See Rubies and Snakes conference for disambiguation.
Pau C. (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 16:20
Alex S. wrote:
> I can't understand why people who are serious about production
> environment stability would install multiple applications in the same
> environment. It's not healthy.

One very nice way to do this is to run each app with its own user, then
have a ~/.gems directory. Then you can only install each app's gems
here.

For example:
  For my_app_1:
    The app code is here: /home/my_app_1/rails/current
    And the gems are here: /home/my_app_1/.gems
  For my_app_2:
    The app code is here: /home/my_app_2/rails/current
    And the gems are here: /home/my_app_2/.gems

Both users have ~/.gems in their gem load path. So user my_app_1 doesn't
see user my_app_2's gems, and vice versa.

This is how some shared hosts let users install their own gems without
breaking anyone else's apps.
Courtenay (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 19:26
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Alex S. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:
>
Not sure if this is a python troll or not.. however, our biggest
problem was the development environment, not production.
Rick D. (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 21:13
(Received via mailing list)
Stephen E. (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 22:41
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Courtenay 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> Not sure if this is a python troll or not.. however, our biggest
> problem was the development environment, not production.

I hosed my development environment once.  I did pair programming with
a VIM junkie, and foolishly let him install whatever he wanted on my
laptop to embed MacVIM and make it telepathic, or something.  When he
was done I couldn't find my usual shell vi again.  (Yes, sometimes I
use vi instead of Textmate to edit config files and such.  But I don't
want it in a window with its own kitchen sink.)

Then the next day I installed Ruby 1.9 from MacPorts and, in the
process of making it the default, managed to delete the Ruby that came
with OS X.  Gems blew up everywhere, yadda yadda, and then I didn't
want it after all.  Stupid.

My point is that it did not take me days to recover from all this
screwiness.  I was using Time Machine.  I booted from the Leopard DVD,
said "Make it Wednesday again," and let it recopy my whole hard drive.
 Poof, problem never happened, and I didn't lose any work because
documents and projects were all on .Mac or Github.  (Prior to Time
Machine I used dirvish, and recovery would have been slightly more
complex but the same principle applied.)

You guys are famous programmers, so I know you must be disciplined
about backups and version control.  Why did they fail you?  Is it
RSpec's fault?


--
Have Fun,
   Steve E. (removed_email_address@domain.invalid)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org
Mark W. (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 23:13
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Stephen E. 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:

>
> My point is that it did not take me days to recover from all this
> screwiness.  I was using Time Machine.  I booted from the Leopard DVD,
> said "Make it Wednesday again," and let it recopy my whole hard drive.
>

Time Machine is especially cool because it backs up hourly.

My criterion has always been, if a meteor annihilates my computer, how
long
would it take to get back to work? No meteors yet, but better safe than
sorry.

///ark
Stephen E. (Guest)
on 2008-11-05 23:33
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Mark W. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
>
> Time Machine is especially cool because it backs up hourly.
>
> My criterion has always been, if a meteor annihilates my computer, how long
> would it take to get back to work? No meteors yet, but better safe than
> sorry.

It's not sufficient for that scenario, however, because that meteor
would probably take out your nearby external backup drive as well.  My
preference is full-drive local backups and then important documents on
the Internet.  I have a JungleDisk (virtual network drives on top of
Amazon S3) workgroup account for my podcasting team.  It has some
problems with doing live work on it, but for storage or backup it's
easy and cheap.

But this is getting off-topic.  I just wanted to make the point that
blaming an upgrade glitch, however whacked-out it might be, for
cascading code fixes across all projects and losing a couple days of
work was probably unnecessary.  A good computer user should have the
power to turn back time.  I'm also unsure how moving from RSpec to
three totally separate tools reduces the risk of such dependency
glitches happening again.  It wasn't good that this happened, but
RSpec isn't the first and only gem ever to cause problems.


--
Have Fun,
   Steve E. (removed_email_address@domain.invalid)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org
Mark W. (Guest)
on 2008-11-06 00:20
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Stephen E. 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:

>
> It's not sufficient for that scenario, however, because that meteor
> would probably take out your nearby external backup drive as well.


That's a good point, which is why I didn't boast about my 1 TB Time
Capsule.
:)

I plan to setup an rsync to my Web site, RSN.


///ark
Pat M. (Guest)
on 2008-11-06 11:44
(Received via mailing list)
"Mark W." <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Stephen E. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> 
wrote:
>
>     My point is that it did not take me days to recover from all this
>     screwiness.  I was using Time Machine.  I booted from the Leopard DVD,
>     said "Make it Wednesday again," and let it recopy my whole hard drive.
>
> Time Machine is especially cool because it backs up hourly.
>
> My criterion has always been, if a meteor annihilates my computer, how long would it 
take to
> get back to work? No meteors yet, but better safe than sorry.

Chuck Norris protects my computer from meteors and all other
catastrophes.  I don't need no stinkin' time machine.

Pat
Matt W. (Guest)
on 2008-11-06 19:17
(Received via mailing list)
On 6 Nov 2008, at 00:18, Pat M. wrote:
> Chuck Norris protects my computer from meteors and all other
> catastrophes.  I don't need no stinkin' time machine.

Chuck Norris can travel through time. Chuck Norris invented time.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.