search for: sporks

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 patchlevel 173) [i686-darwin9] > > Which crashes the

Using RSpec, Rails Preloading Rails environment undefined method `generators' for #<Rails::Railtie::Configuration:0x0000000339a898> (NoMethodError) /home/rorway/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.1.2/gems/railties-4.1.1/lib/rails/railtie/configuration.rb:95:in `method_missing' /home/rorway/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.1.2/gems/rspec-rails-2.0.0.beta.18/lib/rspec-rails.rb:4:in `<class:Railtie>'

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 that we share the same

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

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 seems to require the use of Spork#trap_method. What is the good

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

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 changes to the spec files they are correctly reloaded

...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...

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > David A. Green wrote: >> I find llvm-commits daunting. So much that I hesitate to do reviews. >> As Chris commented, I am not very active on that list. There's a reason >> for that beyond lack of time. > > So the goal is to make it easier for a member of the community to >

...oundation > > > > > > 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...

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

> This isn't viable; Github pull requests aren't visible on llvm-commits. No, this isn't viable under at least both assumptions: 1) Cost-benefit fails. Github pull requests adds less value to the community than llvm-commits. 2) No technical solution exists. Notifications of Github pull requests can't be sent to llvm-commits. #1 may or may not be the case, which is the point

I''m trying to test registration emails (sent with devise), and I keep getting the error: Net::SMTPServerBusy: 454 4.7.1 <model_spec-hcDgGtZH8xNBDgjK7y7TUQ@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.

Howdy, I'm running Dovecot 1.1.16 on a staging server to do some testing before building a new server and moving a bunch of qmail/vpopmail/courier accounts over. I wanted to test the migration of courier accounts to dovecot with a few clients, so I copied over a few large accounts. All went well with a small account (100+ messages) when accessing the account via POP - no re-downloads

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? Are there any resources on how to have better performance on running requests specs

rspec-rails version 1.2.9 has been released! * <http://rspec.info> * <http://rubyforge.org/projects/rspec> * <http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec-rails> * <http://wiki.github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/rails> * <rspec-devel at rubyforge.org> Behaviour Driven Development for Ruby on Rails. Changes: ### Version 1.2.9 / 2009-10-05 * enhancements * added route_to and

"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