Issue #56 - Use unique database filenames and cleanup the database files after testing. #61
Conversation
|
@arcturus r? |
|
Apparently "doc test" will still fail for the same reason. |
|
This skip "running" the documentation examples. |
|
Not only this makes tests more complicated but it introduces a way for examples to be out of date, reduce coverage (the examples themselves). The solution is to mock db or use one process. I would not accept a patch introducing complexity until the real problem is fixed. |
|
What is complicated is that:
What my patch do is remove 1. and address 2. As for the real problem, issue #53 should solve the side effect better. For the documentation examples:
|
|
I did not know about |
| @@ -344,6 +344,7 @@ describe! setup_tests { | |||
| assert!(false); | |||
| } | |||
| }; | |||
| remove_test_db(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we move this to after_each ?
And all the remove_test_db calls below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When I do that I seem to get a test failure. And I haven't figured out how to view the generated code by the macro - to see what was happening - so I chose the easy way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would I be really picky if i ask to spend some times knowing why it's happening? Cause it looks a bit weird to me right now with all those calls.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we are hitting reem/stainless#47.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adding a ; at the end of each "it" block make it work. Updating PR.
…les after testing.
|
r? @arcturus - I addressed that last comment working around a bug in stainless. |
|
Great stuff! |
Issue #56 - Use unique database filenames and cleanup the database files after testing.
No description provided.