[rspec-users] Rails 3 Support/Design
dchelimsky at gmail.com
Fri Jun 11 17:24:36 EDT 2010
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:17 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:10 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:14 PM, geetarista <geetarista at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Since Rspec-Rails 2 is specifically geared toward Rails 3, I'm
>>>>> wondering why it doesn't use railtie, the new generators, etc. Will
>>>>> it stay this way or is it planned to support that?
>>>> It does use the new generators, and we do have a railtie, but bundler
>>>> doesn't support exposing the railtie in the :test group by default, so
>>>> if you do this:
>>>> group :test do
>>>> gem "rspec-rails"
>>>> ... then you won't see the rake tasks or the generators. I believe
>>>> this will be addressed in bundler before it goes final, at which point
>>>> we'll rely only on the railtie.
>>> I'm not sure I see how bundler would address this, but couldn't it be
>>> addressed by breaking the stuff you need from rspec-rails in the
>>> development environment into a separate rspec-rails-dev gem or
>>> something like that.
>>> Breaking up gems seems to have been a theme in the transition from
>>> Rails 2 -> Rails 3.
>>> Just an idea
>> And an interesting one at that, but I think it would add to more confusion than not. Right now you just have to require 'rspec-rails' in the Gemfile and it depends on rspec, which depends on all the other gems. If we separated out a gem for generators/rake tasks, it would need to be outside the test group, so you'd have one rspec gem in one group and one in another.
>> I spoke w/ wycats about this issue at RailsConf and he agreed that railties in the test group should be exposed in development mode. RSpec won't be the only tool that this impacts, nor would RSpec users be the only people.
>> That all make sense?
> Well if it makes sense to you and Yehuda, that's all that matters.
> I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of bundler loading
> part of a gem, but that's probably cuz I really haven't dug into how
> bundler really works.
I hadn't considered that :) I imagine it would have to load the gem.
I'll discuss further w/ carlhuda and follow up when I know something
More information about the rspec-users