Should I be using database_cleaner to tear down data in RSpec 2.0 + Rails 3.0?

stickstone · June 5, 2010, 8:00pm

Subject pretty much asks the question

stickstone · June 5, 2010, 8:18pm

On Jun 5, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Brian C. wrote:

Subject pretty much asks the question

You can, but if you use ActiveRecord and start off with a clean DB,
you can use_transactional_examples (alias for
use_transactional_fixtures, which defaults to true in beta.10, but will
default to false in beta.11).

stickstone · June 5, 2010, 9:40pm

David,

I’m not seeing that behavior.

I have beta.10 and without using database_cleaner data is persisting
after each spec and from suite run to suite run. I thought
database_cleaner would resolve the issue but it doesn’t seem to.

Bran

stickstone · June 5, 2010, 10:19pm

Sorry, forgot to answer the other question. I am using ActiveRecord.
Just a greenfield Rails 3.0.0.beta3 app

Brian

stickstone · June 5, 2010, 9:47pm

On Jun 5, 2010, at 3:34 PM, Brian C. wrote:

I have beta.10 and without using database_cleaner data is persisting
after each spec and from suite run to suite run. I thought
database_cleaner would resolve the issue but it doesn’t seem to.

I am seeing that behaviour

Are you using AR? What does your spec_helper look like?

This cucumber feature passes:

github.com

rspec/rspec-rails/blob/master/features/model_specs/transactional_examples.feature

Feature: transactional examples

  By default rspec executes each individual example in a transaction.

  You can also explicitly enable/disable transactions the configuration
  property 'use_transactional_examples'.

  Scenario: run in transactions (default)
    Given a file named "spec/models/widget_spec.rb" with:
      """ruby
      require "rails_helper"

      RSpec.describe Widget, :type => :model do
        it "has none to begin with" do
          expect(Widget.count).to eq 0
        end

        it "has one after adding one" do
          Widget.create
          expect(Widget.count).to eq 1

This file has been truncated. show original

Not sure what’s up, but there is something different about your
environment.

stickstone · June 5, 2010, 10:31pm

Ok, something else is going on because I just generated a brand new
app with rspec-2.0.beta.10 and the transactions are working just fine.
Sorry about that, I’ll track down the issue.

Brian

stickstone · June 5, 2010, 10:20pm

Yeah, I’m not certain what the deal is.

Here is my spec_helper: http://pastie.org/993256

I was using Spork but commented it out to see if that was an issue.
Nope.
I was using sqlite to see if the lack of a real transactional database
was the issue. (changed to postgres) Nope.

Not certain if this is of any help but here is my Gemfile:
http://pastie.org/993259
(it’s a mess, I know)

This is confusing.

Brian

stickstone · June 5, 2010, 11:17pm

Okay, it’s going to be one of those weekends. I forgot to wrap the
example in an ‘it’ block. It was just a bare ‘context’ block running
the code. False alarm!

Brian

stickstone · June 5, 2010, 11:19pm

On Jun 5, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Brian C. wrote:

Ok, something else is going on because I just generated a brand new
app with rspec-2.0.beta.10 and the transactions are working just fine.
Sorry about that, I’ll track down the issue.

Happens

Good luck.

stickstone · June 5, 2010, 10:33pm

On Jun 5, 2010, at 4:11 PM, Brian C. wrote:

Yeah, I’m not certain what the deal is.

Here is my spec_helper: http://pastie.org/993256

I was using Spork but commented it out to see if that was an issue.
Nope.
I was using sqlite to see if the lack of a real transactional database
was the issue. (changed to postgres) Nope.

Not certain if this is of any help but here is my Gemfile: http://pastie.org/993259

I see two rspec-rails references in your Gemfile - not sure if that’s
the issue, but it could be.