Manasi Vora wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
> Hi Rai,
>
> Good that you have found a solution..
>
> but I still don't understand why you want to test sending mails from the
> browser. In my project, we use Cucumber + Webrat for writing functional
> features.
> and Cucumber + selenium for acceptance features
> Yeap everything worked like a charm, once again checking email contents
> like there is no tomorrow ;-)
>
> Rai
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> ___
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailm
>1.
>http://seattlerb.rubyforge.org/ar_mailer/classes/ActionMailer/ARMailer.html
> P.S. I'll follow up with a confirmation post just to let the people know
> how it worked out for us with ARMailer.
Yeap everything worked like a charm, once again checking email contents
like there is no tomorrow
Thanks guys, very interesting points.
As a good collegue of mine says, its all about trade offs :)
I agree with changing your production code to make it more testable,
definitely, especially early on in the development process, once your
site is up and running it would have to be done with extr
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Ben Mabey wrote:
>
> Both ways involve some extra work. If it isn't worth the investment then
> the only other option is to test the emails apart from the selenium tests.
> It just depends on how important it is that you test everything at the same
> time.
Good
Stephen Eley wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Ben Mabey wrote:
Well, in this case the ARMailer is an arguably better alternative than
waiting on an SMTP connection for ActionMailer in production settings.
ARMailer was not created to solve testing woes.. it was created it solve
produc
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Ben Mabey wrote:
>
> Well, in this case the ARMailer is an arguably better alternative than
> waiting on an SMTP connection for ActionMailer in production settings.
> ARMailer was not created to solve testing woes.. it was created it solve
> production woes. :) T
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
> I'm not commenting on this particular situation, but if I want to use
> some library, but I can't figure out how to write tests for my code
> that uses it, then I don't use it.
I take the opposite view. My *goal* in coding isn't to write goo
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
> Basically, if I have to change something to make it testable, I do.
Yeah. Testability is a positive attribute. If you'd change code to
make it more readable or more speedy, why not more testable?
///ark
__
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Ben Mabey wrote:
>>
>> One option is to use ARMailer[1] to queue your mail. As long as your
>> selenium process and test process are using the same DB without transactions
>> getting in the way then ARMailer
Stephen Eley wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Ben Mabey wrote:
One option is to use ARMailer[1] to queue your mail. As long as your
selenium process and test process are using the same DB without transactions
getting in the way then ARMailer should work fine for what you want to do.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Ben Mabey wrote:
>
> One option is to use ARMailer[1] to queue your mail. As long as your
> selenium process and test process are using the same DB without transactions
> getting in the way then ARMailer should work fine for what you want to do.
Is changing produ
Raimond Garcia wrote:
Hi,
We are upgrading to cucumber 0.1.99 in the process we also upgraded to
the latest versions of webrat and rspec. However now we are having
difficulties checking for ActionMailer.deliveries in the selenium
features. I seem to recall being able to check for these without
Hi,
We are upgrading to cucumber 0.1.99 in the process we also upgraded to
the latest versions of webrat and rspec. However now we are having
difficulties checking for ActionMailer.deliveries in the selenium
features. I seem to recall being able to check for these without
problems using webrat's
14 matches
Mail list logo
