ruote log_2010-08-17

2010-08-17 01:12:34 utc jmettraux dhf: you should have no problem testing the consume method of a participant
2010-08-17 01:13:09 utc jmettraux have to run
2010-08-17 01:20:26 utc gmcinnes spamhead
2010-08-17 04:20:28 utc dhf jmettraux: I assume I should either emulate a workitem or can I easily instantiate an actual one. I created one but got an error related to fs_storage. I do not want to run a process, I just want to call the consume to test it.
2010-08-17 04:21:49 utc jmettraux you can create a workitem by doing wi ='fields' => {})
2010-08-17 04:22:12 utc jmettraux then participant.consume(wi)
2010-08-17 04:26:16 utc dhf I will try it
2010-08-17 05:46:00 utc dhf if the participant tries to add something to the work item it seems I get an error on storage for nilclass
2010-08-17 05:48:41 utc dhf the participant does add several fields to the workitem
2010-08-17 06:17:41 utc jmettraux dhf: sorry, back
2010-08-17 06:18:15 utc jmettraux your participant is trying to reply to the engine
2010-08-17 06:19:00 utc jmettraux you have to mock the context/storage
2010-08-17 06:19:44 utc jmettraux when you instantiate the participant, do something like
2010-08-17 06:22:31 utc jmettraux
2010-08-17 06:23:58 utc jmettraux tosch_le: hello
2010-08-17 06:24:08 utc tosch_le hello folks!
2010-08-17 06:24:38 utc tosch_le i see, you're contemplating about the "spec my participant" problem from yesterday :-)
2010-08-17 06:26:49 utc jmettraux dhf: or simply neutralize the reply_to_engine method, like in
2010-08-17 06:26:58 utc jmettraux tosch_le: yes
2010-08-17 06:27:18 utc jmettraux the participant wants to reply to the engine
2010-08-17 06:27:26 utc jmettraux and there is no engine/storage
2010-08-17 06:27:33 utc jmettraux so it triggers an error
2010-08-17 06:27:48 utc jmettraux
2010-08-17 06:36:56 utc tosch_le the participant replies in the consume method?
2010-08-17 06:37:59 utc jmettraux yes
2010-08-17 06:38:09 utc jmettraux classical local participant
2010-08-17 06:38:41 utc tosch_le i suppose i would stub the reply_to_engine method
2010-08-17 06:38:44 utc jmettraux def consume(workitem); workitem.fields['hello'] = 'world'; reply_to_engine(workitem); end
2010-08-17 06:39:58 utc tosch_le something like "participant_instance.expects(:reply_to_engine).with(workitem)"
2010-08-17 06:40:24 utc tosch_le that even specs the fact that reply_to_engine is called within the method
2010-08-17 06:46:14 utc jmettraux cool
2010-08-17 06:46:58 utc jmettraux is that a rspec idiom or do you need something like mocha to do it ?
2010-08-17 06:47:16 utc tosch_le let me have a look in the rspec book
2010-08-17 06:48:23 utc tosch_le "A message expectation, a.k.a. mock expectation, is a method stub that
2010-08-17 06:48:24 utc tosch_le will raise an error if it is never called. In RSpec, we create a message
2010-08-17 06:48:24 utc tosch_le expectation using the should_receive( )
2010-08-17 06:48:24 utc tosch_le "
2010-08-17 06:49:01 utc tosch_le participant_instance.should_receive(:reply_to_engine)
2010-08-17 06:49:42 utc tosch_le the ".with(workitem)" may be added, too.
2010-08-17 06:50:58 utc jmettraux if you could gist it the complete example :-)
2010-08-17 06:52:26 utc tosch_le is there the existing spec code anywhere?
2010-08-17 06:53:27 utc jmettraux nowhere
2010-08-17 06:53:51 utc jmettraux dhf: could we have a look at your spec and make it work for you ?
2010-08-17 06:54:49 utc tosch_le giving an example gist is fine, but it's really only the one line above.
2010-08-17 06:57:28 utc tosch_le
2010-08-17 06:58:10 utc jmettraux many thanks
2010-08-17 06:58:20 utc jmettraux I should really switch all my testing to rspec
2010-08-17 06:58:59 utc tosch_le never mind, glad to be helpful.
2010-08-17 06:59:32 utc tosch_le the mocking and stubbing stuff really makes it easy to isolate testing to certain aspects of a method/class
2010-08-17 07:00:47 utc jmettraux loving it :-)
2010-08-17 07:01:08 utc tosch_le "The RSpec Book" from the "he Pragmatic Bookshelf" is worth its price imho
2010-08-17 07:01:30 utc tosch_le there's a 't' missing in the line above…
2010-08-17 07:01:40 utc jmettraux I got it
2010-08-17 07:02:04 utc tosch_le that was a hint for the rest of the world ;-p
2010-08-17 07:02:19 utc jmettraux but was always turned off by .should == or .should x
2010-08-17 07:02:33 utc jmettraux but now finding my marks
2010-08-17 07:02:54 utc jmettraux or always stuck with test/unit, because of habits
2010-08-17 07:03:01 utc jmettraux and it's here
2010-08-17 07:03:21 utc tosch_le i never started with test/unit, so it's easy for me
2010-08-17 07:03:24 utc jmettraux but now moving on, thanks to you and Kenneth
2010-08-17 07:05:31 utc jmettraux wow, you're lucky
2010-08-17 07:06:05 utc tosch_le no, not lucky, we never used to write tests at our small company
2010-08-17 07:06:37 utc tosch_le that drives as mad now in our somehow grown and barely manageable php project.
2010-08-17 07:07:10 utc tosch_le so i'm going to use rspec for all future ruby projects we develop :-)
2010-08-17 07:08:22 utc jmettraux may all the future projects be ruby projects
2010-08-17 07:08:48 utc tosch_le wise words.
2010-08-17 07:10:16 utc tosch_le rspec matchers i like most: object.should be_* (calls object.*?) and in rails lambda.should.change
2010-08-17 07:11:11 utc tosch_le 'have_*' and 'has_*' are nice ones, too.
2010-08-17 08:50:49 utc jmettraux tosch_le: I feel rk is ready for a 2.1.11 release, what do you think ?
2010-08-17 08:51:51 utc tosch_le you have set the "done" marks on the wishlist entries, so i suppose, yes, let's release.
2010-08-17 08:53:59 utc jmettraux I will actually double-check all the storage implementations at first
2010-08-17 09:34:20 utc tosch_le just do a "rake release" if you're ready :-)
2010-08-17 09:34:52 utc jmettraux lol
2010-08-17 12:26:22 utc jmettraux tosch_le : I'll probably need your help to double check rk's README
2010-08-17 12:26:34 utc jmettraux then you can greenlight me for the release
2010-08-17 12:26:51 utc tosch_le what means 'probably'? ;-)
2010-08-17 12:29:45 utc tosch_le I'd drop the dependencies list; the gemfile is literal enough for that
2010-08-17 12:31:44 utc jmettraux do it please
2010-08-17 12:31:46 utc jmettraux ;-)
2010-08-17 12:31:58 utc tosch_le fine :-)
2010-08-17 12:32:15 utc jmettraux if you have the time
2010-08-17 12:32:58 utc tosch_le i do.
2010-08-17 12:33:39 utc tosch_le the configuration section isn't up to date, too, i'll fix that.
2010-08-17 12:34:23 utc jmettraux I will investigate how to secure /_ruote
2010-08-17 12:35:15 utc jmettraux I have this rails application and I just activated _ruote in it, but it's like a loaded gun
2010-08-17 12:36:07 utc tosch_le too true. but it's the user's responsibility to secure the app – at least at the moment
2010-08-17 12:36:37 utc jmettraux indeed, but I will document some ways to do it
2010-08-17 12:36:51 utc tosch_le that's great
2010-08-17 12:50:17 utc tosch_le hmm, there isn't a default ruote engine to load anymore if none is bound?
2010-08-17 12:50:35 utc tosch_le that's ok, but i need to figure that out in the readme
2010-08-17 13:17:30 utc jmettraux I'll cover you, if you don't know what to write, insert a explain this or that
2010-08-17 13:17:55 utc tosch_le ok, i'm trying my best
2010-08-17 13:40:50 utc tosch_le
2010-08-17 13:47:20 utc jmettraux very good :-)
2010-08-17 13:48:35 utc tosch_le i hope there are not too many mistakes :-)
2010-08-17 13:49:31 utc jmettraux looks OK, I'll re-read it tomorrow
2010-08-17 13:49:37 utc jmettraux many thanks !
2010-08-17 13:49:54 utc tosch_le never mind. i'm always glad to be helpful
2010-08-17 13:50:44 utc jmettraux :-)
2010-08-17 19:34:46 utc dhf Sorry I missed your post request last night. It seems to work now but here it is:
2010-08-17 21:49:01 utc dhf I converted to the format from tousch_le provided and it works ok. Is the proper response to the engine when done reply(workitem) or reply_to_engine(workitem)
2010-08-17 23:32:14 utc jmettraux dhf: I've seen your
2010-08-17 23:32:20 utc jmettraux hello
2010-08-17 23:32:37 utc jmettraux since you're using rspec you should have a look at "should_receive"
2010-08-17 23:33:47 utc dhf I am experimenting with that now
2010-08-17 23:33:56 utc jmettraux it lets you test whether reply_to_engine is called and whether the workitem was modified in the way you expected
2010-08-18 00:43:56 utc dhf Is the correct one reply(workitem) or reply_to_engine(workitem)?
2010-08-18 00:44:33 utc jmettraux both are correct
2010-08-18 00:44:56 utc jmettraux it was reply_to_engine initially, but I simplified to reply