Spork? #1010

Closed
alindeman opened this Issue Jul 21, 2013 · 15 comments

Projects

None yet

6 participants

@alindeman
Collaborator

Do any of us actually use spork in development? If not, we might consider removing its artifacts from spec_helper.

WDYT everyone?

@samphippen
Member

I don't even know what it is :).

Ps: Andy I'm on a train home and should be in time for our pairing sesh.

@alindeman
Collaborator

It's a preloader. It preloads an environment, then forks off to run tests. The idea is you get a faster startup time because you only pay the hit to load some files once. The reality (in my experience) is that you often get busted tests caused by forgetting that some changes are being 'cached' by spork.

@JonRowe
Member
JonRowe commented Jul 21, 2013

I'm game for removing it, I only ever used it on Rails projects because of the horrific boot up time in days of old. I don't think its necessary for RSpec...

@myronmarston
Member

I don't use spork on any projects. I've often thought it was odd/unnecessary that we had it in our spec_helper.rb. However, given that it's important we don't break drb/ spork compatibility, the point if having it in spec_helper.rb might be to provide an easy means to manually test spork support from within rspec-core and it might be worth keeping for that reason.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 21, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Jon Rowe notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm game for removing it, I only ever used it on Rails projects because of the horrific boot up time in days of old. I don't think its necessary for RSpec...


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@JonRowe
Member
JonRowe commented Jul 22, 2013

Although if none of use actually use it, it won't catch anything so we're just as reliant on having users report problems. Maybe it's worth setting up an "integrations" repository which contains some sample spec suites using tools like Spork, and then running Travis against them? Bonus if we can trigger travis builds on that repo each time we push to an rspec repo?

@soulcutter
Member

I feel the same as @alindeman about spork. In practice it has not been useful to me.

@alindeman
Collaborator

Or maybe we keep the spork artifacts around and add a travis environment where spork is used?

@JonRowe
Member
JonRowe commented Jul 23, 2013

But there are multiple tools that do similar jobs, why is spork granted special access? :)

@alindeman
Collaborator

But there are multiple tools that do similar jobs, why is spork granted special access? :)

True, I was just thinking that if one tool that used DRb worked correctly, we could have pretty good confidence that RSpec + DRb is working properly and others tools would too.

What do you think?

@JonRowe
Member
JonRowe commented Jul 23, 2013

Don't we already test that DRB works?

@myronmarston
Member

We don't currently have any kind of end-to-end DRB tests. It'd be great if
someone wanted to add some....

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Jon Rowe notifications@github.com wrote:

Don't we already test that DRB works?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/1010#issuecomment-21450680
.

@threez
threez commented Jul 24, 2013

Im not sure if spork is the only DRb server that can be used by rspec but i give a +1 on removing it. For test unit there is a separate gem spork-testunit taking care of the magic. We recently started to use spork and i had some truble with the way the DRb servers are setup and macs IPv6 link local address (fe80::1%lo0) which is not correctly handled in ruby < 2.0.0. The problem here is rspec makes the promise, that it works with spork and drb but it desn't and really if the spork maintainers decide not to use DRb why should rspec even care? Removing this code and creating an integration gem like spork-rspec seems to be the best solution to me.

@JonRowe
Member
JonRowe commented Jul 24, 2013

@threez if you read this thread more carefully you'll see we're talking about harness code in rspec's own tests. Theres no code in the main gem specific to spork.

@threez
threez commented Jul 24, 2013

Sorry, i didn't meant this either. I mentioned spork because it relies on Drb. And i think Drb is supported to work. Or it shoud. I just wanted to say i would like the drb stuff outside of rspec, which then would include the tests for this also.

@myronmarston
Member

Stale. Closing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment