search for: spork

Andy Shipman wrote: > When running spork on a merb application, whenever a spec is run I get > the following error from the Spork server. > > /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/merb-core-1.0.11/lib/merb-core/bootloader.rb:1358: > [BUG] rb_gc_mark(): unknown data type 0x3c(0x2203d0) non object > ruby 1.8.7 (2009-06-08 patc...

...s/ruby-2.1.2@global/gems/bundler-1.6.2/lib/bundler/runtime.rb:61:in `require' /home/rorway/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.1.2@global/gems/bundler-1.6.2/lib/bundler.rb:132:in `require' /home/rorway/sample_app/config/application.rb:14:in `<top (required)>' /home/rorway/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.1.2/gems/spork-rails-4.0.0/lib/spork/app_framework/rails.rb:49:in `require' /home/rorway/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.1.2/gems/spork-rails-4.0.0/lib/spork/app_framework/rails.rb:49:in `preload_rails' /home/rorway/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.1.2/gems/spork-rails-4.0.0/lib/spork/app_framework/rails.rb:7:in `preload' /home/...

Just brainstorming here, but what if each CODE_OWNER maintained a spork on Github and accepted Pull Requests? What's a spork, you ask? Well it's fork with no intent to diverge - it spoons some centralized repo (be it via git or git-svn). If you haven't heard the term 'spork' in this context before, it's either because I just made it up or tha...

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > Just brainstorming here, but what if each CODE_OWNER maintained a spork on > Github and accepted Pull Requests? What's a spork, you ask? Well it's > fork with no intent to diverge - it spoons some centralized repo (be it via > git or git-svn). If you haven't heard the term 'spork' in this context > before, it's either because I ju...

Hi, I''m having some strange behavior on callbacks when testing with RSpec2. On my test, when I create a resource using the #create method the callbacks related to #before_create are not called. If I go to the console and I try to type the command Resource.create(client_uri: "http://example.com") all works fine. There are no mocks around, and I can''t understand if this

Hi. I''m trying to use Spork (actually spork-testunit, last git version) with Rails 3. My setup is correct, I manage to launch Spork (through bundle exec) and testdrb. But I cannot succeed to have my models reloaded. Spork-testunit''s doc says to put the loading commands in the prefork block, which I did. Nobody see...

Hi folks, I''m going through railstutorial.org and so I apologize if I''m hitting the wrong group here and would appreciate any appropriate redirection if necessary. I''ve set up Spork + Autotest as per Michael''s instructions in http://ruby.railstutorial.org/chapters/static-pages#sec:testing_tools Essentially by doing the following (using rvm & I''m on Mac OS X): $ gem install autotest -v 4.4.6 $ gem install autotest-rails-pure -v 4.1.2 $ gem install autotes...

Hi everyone. I''ve been using spork+guard+rspec with great happiness in my latest projects, but yesterday I came across to a wired bug I can''t really understand and where I''ve spent the whole morning trying to figure out what was going wrong. Let me explain. I''ve making unit test to my models. When I apply...

...mber of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Christopher Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:48 PM To: Greg Fitzgerald Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] code-owner sporks On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: Just brainstorming here, but what if each CODE_OWNER maintained a spork on Github and accepted Pull Requests? What's a spork, you ask? Well it's fork with no intent to diverge - it spoons some...

...here's a reason >> for that beyond lack of time. > > So the goal is to make it easier for a member of the community to > review only commits to a sub-tree that interests them? > > Let's say it may or may not be easier for reviewers to monitor the > Pull Requests of a spork than to write a clever filter for > llvm-commits. And we'll also say that it may or may not be easier for > reviewers to comment on a patch on Github than trying to reference > code blocks in llvm-commits email. At this point we really don't know > if one solution is better th...

...with a bleeding-edge clang with the latest warnings turned on. > As a code owner I would think it would be nice to see a consolidated list of > the open patches for your area. I suppose it would also be nice to see which > commits have gone into your area and need a post-commit review. A spork does nothing to solve this: most development is small, incremental changes done by people with commit access *committing directly to trunk* (possibly after a review if the change isn't "obvious", or is large, or otherwise tricky). The LLVM development style tries to make many small, *...

Running: Rails 3.0.5 ZenTest 4.5.0 autotest (4.4.6, 4.3.2) autotest-fsevent (0.2.5, 0.2.2) autotest-growl (0.2.9, 0.2.4) autotest-rails (4.1.0) autotest-rails-pure (4.1.2, 4.1.0) cucumber (0.10.2) cucumber-rails (0.4.0) spork (0.9.0.rc4) Gives me a truly bizarre situation. When I touch my features file, autotest runs a single, unrelated rspec test. Cucumber alone or with spork gives me the correct output, but the autotest event fires on the wrong file. Any thoughts? -- You received this message because you are subs...

...> for that beyond lack of time. >> >> So the goal is to make it easier for a member of the community to >> review only commits to a sub-tree that interests them? >> >> Let's say it may or may not be easier for reviewers to monitor the >> Pull Requests of a spork than to write a clever filter for >> llvm-commits. And we'll also say that it may or may not be easier for >> reviewers to comment on a patch on Github than trying to reference >> code blocks in llvm-commits email. At this point we really don't know >> if one solut...

...gjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>: Relay access denied I''m running Rails 3.2.11 with Capybara, and I have (temporarily) chopped my spec_helper.rb and test.rb files down to the bare minimum, still getting the error above. spec_helper.rb: require ''rubygems'' require ''spork'' Spork.prefork do ENV["RAILS_ENV"] ||= ''test'' require File.expand_path("../../config/environment", __FILE__) require ''rspec/rails'' require ''rspec/autorun'' require ''capybara/rspec'' Dir[Ra...

...he uidl format. IMAP looks good as well after running the conversion script and setting the namespace properly. However, one thing I copied over without paying much attention was a non-quota'd spam box that has literally not been checked in at least a year: [root at nac /var/vmail/xxx.com/spork/Maildir/.Spam]# ls new/| wc -l 70501 Mail.app valiantly tried to sync this, but when I realized just how huge this was, I took the account offline and quit the app. However it seems like Dovecot is still busy doing something in that mailbox: lsof: no pwd entry for UID 5000 imap 27515...

Even with Spork, my requests specs are very slow to start running (about 7 seconds). I suspect Rails is booting each time I run "rspec -X spec/requests". Is that true? If so, is there any way I could instruct the web server to keep alive after the specs run so that it would be faster on next run? Ar...

...ings to hashes. Closes #872. * errors correctly bubble up when a controller spec in isolation mode requests a non-existent action/template * no error if either action or template exist * error if neither exist * Closes #888. * removals * spec_server has been removed in favor of spork. * You can still use the --drb flag, but you''ve got to install the spork gem. * Windows users who cannot use the spork gem can install the spec_server from http://github.com/dchelimsky/spec_server

"David Peixotto" <dpeixott at codeaurora.org> writes: > I think the main benefit of a scheme like this would be that a pull > request tells a code owner which patches require their attention. As a > contributor it would be nice to see your patch in a queue somewhere > rather than just be buried down the mailing list. When patches are > sent to llvm-commits it can be

On Nov 16, 2012, at 9:56 AM, dag at cray.com wrote: >> Ping at appropriate time intervals (~3 days is sane); > > 3 days is *not* sane. The fact that we require pings at all indicates a > broken process. I don't understand why there is such resistance to a > patch queue. I don't even care about the revision control system as > much as I do about a managed patch

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:56:57AM -0600, dag at cray.com wrote: > > Ping at appropriate time intervals (~3 days is sane); > > 3 days is *not* sane. The fact that we require pings at all indicates a > broken process. I don't understand why there is such resistance to a > patch queue. I don't see any resistance, quite the contrary. From all the list traffic it is