WIP: Add dummy Rails application, tests #419
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
nateberkopec
force-pushed
the
add-dummy-rails-app
branch
8 times, most recently
from
b44b4bd to
bd18d5b
Compare
This will let us test transports without mocking. Viva La Statism!
Pending because this currently appears to be broken. Ruby 2.2.4 will not work with Rails 3 in our test suite due to some wonky Rspec-related issue.
nateberkopec
force-pushed
the
add-dummy-rails-app
branch
from
bd18d5b to
e19632c
Compare
nateberkopec
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2015
Add dummy Rails application, tests
nateberkopec
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2015
Add dummy Rails application, tests
nateberkopec
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2015
Add dummy Rails application, tests
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is revealing the problems with our approach in #343.
Basically, #343, #370, #371, and #388 are all part of the same issue. The added test here reproduces the issue in #388, but I need to think about all the different use cases here and how we can satisfy each one.