[LRUG] Same query, different results

[Jonathan]

Yeah I've actually just started changing the tests to use that, it's a
bit slow because we have a lot of tables in our database (so cascading
truncations spread far and wide) but it works and I plan on making the
normal specs use transactions which is a step in the right direction.
Thanks for the tip though, it seems like the best idea I've come
across!

On 23 January 2012 16:29, Simon Coffey <simon at tribesports.com> wrote:
> Hi Jono,
>
> On 23 January 2012 16:00, Jonathan <j.fantham at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23 January 2012 15:53, Richard Taylor <richard at richt.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > Is your Retailer created by the spec?  I think the tests are run in a
>> > transaction that gets rolled back, so only the db session that created
>> > the
>> > object will be able to see it, this would explain why you can't see it
>> > anywhere else.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah it is. It's created in a before(:each).
>>
>>
>> Ok thanks, so I guess can't use transactional specs and I'll need to
>> stick with fixtures for now. Pity!
>
>
> Not necessarily - using something like the database_cleaner gem
> (https://github.com/bmabey/database_cleaner) you can clean up after each
> example using table truncation - there's an example configuration in the
> README. My integration tests (cucumber, not rspec, but same diff) run quite
> happily using factories and DatabaseCleaner with the truncation strategy.
>
> Alternatively, there might be some way to force everything to use a shared
> DB connection, but it's hard to say without knowing more about your setup.
>
> Cheers,
> Simon
>
> --
> Simon Coffey
> Developer, Tribesports
> simon at tribesports.com | 07960 004 857
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org
> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>