Merb test harness

[Matt Aimonetti]

Sounds good to me.
 I'm willing to try working on the generator.

This is what I had in mind:

 $ merb -g app bookshop
 $ merb -g model Book name:string author:string published_at:date

After a collision check, merb would automatically generate:
 - an Active Record Model
 - a migration file
 - a fixture file
 - a rspec example
 - a unit test

I would personally stick to only rspec but I'm fine with adding a unit
test template and generate a test and an example per model.

Regarding using ruby-sequel instead of Active Record, I think that's a
good idea. I would probably have to modify the actual generator and we
could add an option for the ORM you want to use. When the developer
decides to generate a model, the generator could check on the ORM used
and use the proper template.

What do you think?

Also, I have few newbie questions. How's your development/testing
environment like? I guess you don't package/install the gem every
time, do you? Do you just work on the files directly in your gems
folder? I'm sorry, I never worked on a gem and I couldn't find the
rubygems developer guide. (and I prefer to sound ignorant than to
waste my time not doing things properly :) )


-Matt



On 7/29/07, Chris McGrath <chris at octopod.info> wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Jul 2007, at 12:54, Chris McGrath wrote:
>
>
> Stories are good, code is better :) I think having some high level
>
> statements about what merb will and will not do/provide for plugins
>
> and testing frameworks agreed would be a good start and stories would
>
> be one way of getting to them.
>
> Replying to my own mail :)
> I've had a look at the rspec_on_rails plugin in mrblog (is this the right
> place?) and test_spec_on_rails from it's repo. My initial impressions are
> there are several things merb should do for a test harness:
>
> 1. Load the test database
> 2. Load the app files
> 3. Provide a FakeRequest
> 4. Provide MultiPart functionality
>
> This seems to be the common stuff between the two plugins at the moment.
>
> 1 & 2 are concerned with merb initialization and i'm unsure what the best
> way of handling this is.
>
> re 3 & 4. I called the FakeRequest MockRequest yesterday, this is a bad name
> as it's not a mock :). I'd like to add in a Merb::Test namespace and have
> Merb::Test::FakeRequest and Merb::Test::MultiPart for the plugins to use.
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Merb-devel mailing list
> Merb-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/merb-devel
>
>