similar to: Testable after_commit hooks for rails 4?

We''re migrating a Rails 2.3.x application to Rails 3 and RSpec 2.x. In Rails 2.3.x we were using https://github.com/freelancing-god/after_commit to provide after_commit functionality (now provided by Rails 3). The plugin version of after_commit came with some helpers to make testing with `use_transactional_fixtures = true` work. From: https://github.com/freelancing-god/after_commit

Rails 3 adds after_commit and after_rollback callbacks, but it appears they are not available as methods in an Observer. Is that the way it''s supposed to be, an oversight, or am I doing it wrong? Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to

I like the idea of having unit tests make sure what gets logged. I found a plugin called "testable logger" at http://code.teytek.com/rails/plugins/testable_logger/ This promises to do what I''m looking for. But the code itself is not available through the links provided. The author hasn''t responded to my email. Does anyone know an alternative or has a copy of the

I''ve submitted a couple of patches in Ligththouse. Provide NoStore implementation of ActiveSupport::Cache::Store This patch provides a NoStore implementation of ActiveSupport::Cache::Store suitable for use in development and test environments where the code need to use the cache interface, but actually caching data is not desired.

Hai guys! When i try to do rake gems:install and rake gems:refresh_specs in my app below error is occurred. please give some solution for this. config.gem: Unpacked gem authlogic-2.1.3 in vendor/gems has no specification file. Run ''rake gems:refresh_specs'' to fix this. rake aborted! undefined method `map'' for nil:NilClass enivorment.rb RAILS_GEM_VERSION =

There''s a small inconsistency in ActiveRecord''s callback syntax that has tripped me up before. It wouldn''t be a big deal, but it can lead to a silent failure. I''d like to suggest that it either be made consistent or be made to fail loudly. The issue is that to do something before validating, but only when creating, you use `before_validation on: :create`,

I''m trying to add some code for my ActiveRecord class so that it is executed whenever an object is updated, this code is a seperate process that reads from the same table represented by my model class so when it runs it needs the database to be up to date. In the following situation this is fine: # MyModel def after_save `/usr/local/bin/update_models -i #{self.id}` end # controller

Hi, unicorn unconditionally sets rack.multiprocess to true in the Rack environment. The Rack spec [0] says the following about the variable: "true if an equivalent application object may be simultaneously invoked by another process, false otherwise." When unicorn is running with a single worker this does not hold so what do you think about setting the variable to false when only a

Hey guys, Firstly, I''m new to the list and great work with backgroundrb, it''s sweet!!! I''ve just started noticing an issue and i''m wondering if there is a standard fix. The situation is as follows: 1. In my model''s after_save I call my worker asynchronously with the active record object''s id as a parameter (the record that has just

Hi, My nmbd daemon is dying with an internal error periodically. Samba version is 2.2.7a (I think the latest stable) but I've tried with the Samba package that came with my Linux distro (a Debian Woody) and it failed with the same messages too. Here goes the log.nmbd file: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Netbios nameserver version 2.2.7a

Hello, I''m developing an app that basically, receives a 10MB or less XLSX files with +30000 rows or so, and another XLSX file with about 200rows, I have to read one row of the smallest file, look it up on the largest file and write data from both files to a new one. I just did a test reading a few rows from the largest file using ROO (Spreadsheet doesn''t support XSLX and

On Nov 4, 2019, at 4:00 PM, James Molloy via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > We'd be keen to help out what the community decides to do here. I personally feel it's reasonable that: > - LangRef/DataLayout is updated with semantically coherent changes. > - The midend optimizer is updated by someone who cares about those changes and tests are added that use

I have a Production model, which represents a farmer''s crop. After create (via after_save) I call a method that creates one or more Supply models, which represent a week of anticipated product harvest. After each of those are created, a class method gets called that tries to match each new Supply with outstanding orders for the same time period. If a match is made, a transaction (an

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 07:19:25PM +0000, Tim Northover via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 19:11, Dmitriy Borisenkov via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 2. Test with a dummy target. It might work if we have a group of contributors who is willing to rewrite and upstream some of their downstream tests as well as to design and implement the target

On Dec 25, 2014 3:15 PM, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote: > > > Am 25.12.2014 um 21:09 schrieb Benny Pedersen: > >> Robert Schetterer skrev den 2014-12-25 19:49: >>> >>> Am 18.12.2014 um 17:56 schrieb Robin Helgelin: >>>> >>>> We?re using dovecot 1.0.7 >>> >>> that version is total out

Hi all, We’re planning to contribute a new implementation of LLD for Mach-O, using the same design as the COFF and ELF ports. This design has proven to work very well for those ports, and we’re keen to explore it for Mach-O as well. Our work is based on an initial prototype created by Peter Collingbourne and Rui Ueyama. Our initial commit is up for review at https://reviews.llvm.org/D75382.

Hi, I've recently had the following experience, which may be of help to people here, so I'm mentioning my tests and conclusions. I've recently been observing this behaviour from Samba - this is an easily reproducible problem:- 1/ Open a share 2/ Create a new document in Word. 3/ Make some changes. 4/ Save the document using the save icon on the toolbar, this works as expected. 5/

Thanks for the responses! > I might be wrong (I'd love to be wrong here!) but I think this is a bit > too ambitious > You might be right about it being too ambitious, it would certainly be wise to aim for less. A more polished, but less broad product is definitely better than a buggy standard compliant one, and I think that it would go better with the general philosophy of GSoC. I

Hi again. I've though more about the full standard being too ambitious, and now I fully agree with that. So I had a go at choosing the useful subset of Fortran on which I would like to work on - my update proposal can be viewed at https://gist.github.com/hyp/5434845 . Focusing on less should also improve my productivity and lead to a better summer of code project by drastically reducing the

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dmitri Gribenko" <gribozavr at gmail.com> > To: "Alex L" <arphaman at gmail.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 9:00:51 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GSoC project questions. > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Alex L <arphaman