rspec users - Oct 2007 - Using unit_record and rspec (previously "Keeping unit tests from hitting the DB")

Back in August David Chelimsky wrote:

"FYI - I tried using the unit_record gem and there are some changes
required in rspec to make it work, but they are trivial and it works
great. The only trick is that the prevention of DB access is global
per process, so you''d have to separate examples that hit the DB from
those that don''t into two separate suites. I''ll explore this
possibility and follow up."

I''ve taken a quick look through the latest RDocs and the rspec-devel
archives but cannot see (maybe through my own stupidity) anything
that suggests that trunk now supports unit_record out of the box, with
or without a configuration setting.

I would very much like to experiment with unit_record but would prefer
to do so with rspec rather then with test::unit. Not knowing the rspec
internals myself, please can we have an update on the status or see
the trivial patch that allows us to try this for ourselves.

Many thanks in advance.


Tim

On 10/20/07, Tim Heighes <tim at heighes.com>
wrote:
> Back in August David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> "FYI - I tried using the unit_record gem and there are some changes
> required in rspec to make it work, but they are trivial and it works
> great. The only trick is that the prevention of DB access is global
> per process, so you''d have to separate examples that hit the DB
from
> those that don''t into two separate suites. I''ll explore
this
> possibility and follow up."
>
> I''ve taken a quick look through the latest RDocs and the
rspec-devel
> archives but cannot see (maybe through my own stupidity) anything
> that suggests that trunk now supports unit_record out of the box, with
> or without a configuration setting.
>
> I would very much like to experiment with unit_record but would prefer
> to do so with rspec rather then with test::unit. Not knowing the rspec
> internals myself, please can we have an update on the status or see
> the trivial patch that allows us to try this for ourselves.
This fell off the radar. I just added feature request:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=797&atid=3152

Not the highest priority right now for me, but patches are welcome.

Cheers,
David