On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:13:02PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Name: test_include_query(EagerLoadPolyAssocsTest)
> Type: Error
> Message: ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: PGError: ERROR: syntax error at or
> near "Engine" at character 50
>
> : CREATE TABLE "circles" ("id" serial primary ke
Rack is mainly a set of specifications. You don't need to require
'rack' to use it. Specially w/ adapters.
This is a Rack adapter:
app = proc { |env| [200, {} "Look ma', no Rack gem!"] }
All you have to do is have a call(env) method and return an array of
[status, header, body] in your dispatch
That changeset is fairly intrusive and doesn't seem safe to backport.
Is there a lower-risk alternative out there?
Cheers
Koz
On 19/02/2008, at 6:19 AM, "Chad Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2008 5:05 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Looking forward to a n
The build failed.
CHANGES
---
Revision 8896 committed by bitsweat on 2008-02-19 02:56:05
Don't assume all records from nested include are of same class. Closes #11154
[acechase]
M /trunk/activerecord/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb
A
/trunk/activerecord/test/cases/associations
I'm in the camp of "too early to jump the rack wagon". Having said
that, I don't have a lot of problems with Rack's interface. Only major
advantage of Rack ( not from webserver developer's eye ) I can see is
that it'd make it very easy to extend rails applications. You can
write a rack handler for
I agree that rack is a good idea and while I don't completely agree
with it's interface, i really like the premise of a common web-server
to framework abstraction in the ruby world.
As jeremy pointed out it's unfortunate that rack seems to be
succumbing to early feature creep. If the project coul
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:05:57AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Looking forward to a new stable release but I'm wondering if the
> issues with ActionController::TestCase can be fixed up in 2.0.x.
> Currently there's a bug in 2.0.2 which overrides setup-methods in your
> testcase which got fix
On Feb 17, 2008 4:18 PM, Jeremy Kemper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone know what's going on here? The test is failing erratically in
> CC.rb but not locally.
Joy. That happens on our CI builds at least a few times a month.
Could be anything - architecture differences that cause different tes
It would probably be a tad faster since the stubbing of cgi would not
be required anymore, but that's not a good reason to switch probably.
The main advantage is simplicity, for implementing handlers and
plugging stuff together.
It would definitely remove and cleanup code in the dispatcher. And
On Feb 18, 2008 5:05 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Looking forward to a new stable release but I'm wondering if the
> issues with ActionController::TestCase can be fixed up in 2.0.x.
> Currently there's a bug in 2.0.2 which overrides setup-methods in your
> testcase which got fixed i
I recently submitted http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/11091 which
allows using uploaded files in integration tests.
However, although the actual code seems to work fine, the testcase I
submitted seems to be breaking non-related testcases, due to the way I
tried to set up routing for the test. D
Hi,
Looking forward to a new stable release but I'm wondering if the
issues with ActionController::TestCase can be fixed up in 2.0.x.
Currently there's a bug in 2.0.2 which overrides setup-methods in your
testcase which got fixed in stable with http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10382
This led to
12 matches
Mail list logo
