Will Sargent wrote: >> I'd go one further than Pat Maddox's point: If your unit specs aren't >> going to touch the database, then you really ought to be running a >> tier of more integrated tests on your workstation before every checkin >> (and again on the CI server). For obvious reasons, purely mock-based >> unit tests/specs can and eventually will lie to you about your objects >> actually being ready to work together, so don't trust them to tell you >> about more than what the unit being spec'd does. >> > > I like the idea of running integration tests before every checkin, but > I've heard too many horror stories of it taking 30 minutes or more > before a checkin actually happens. We have integration tests that are > going out to external systems, so it's a single example set can take a > full minute -- and this is right now. > > I very much want integration tests to be run on the CI server on every > checkin. The last place I set this up has a test suite that last for > 90 minutes though, so it's very much a correctness vs convenience > thing. > > Incidentally, when is cruisecontrol.rb going to have a 'testing' tab > that shows passed and failed tests like TextMate? The stack trace is > _ugly_. > > Are you just talking about the HTML formatted specs that textmate uses? You can already get that with cruisecontrol.rb... All you have to do is have tech spec command output a html file.
-Ben _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
