Sigh - more ruby rubbish. There are much cleaner and better and frankly less 'magic' tools available. Find them, use them, say no to ruby!
You are totally right. The best testing tools are written in Assembly.
Capybara: Acceptance test framework for web applications
11–20 of 20 posts
Re: Capybara: Acceptance test framework for web applications
#12Capybara has been a part of my/our workflow for a while; I'm curious why this is on the frontpage -- is there a specific update I'm missing? Either way, I really enjoy Capybara -- especially being able to jump between different drivers for various reasons.
Yeah, it feels like we're partying like it's 2011. I have no idea why this is one the front page either.
Re: Capybara: Acceptance test framework for web applications
#13If you use Capybara, a couple of useful notes, based on what I learned implementing js-enabled &headless specs for my SaaS [3]:
First, using the poltergeist driver [1] which is PhantomJS based will tend to be faster AND raise errors when a javascript error occurs (unlike capybara-webkit), which is really handy if your app has a bit of javascript.
Also, you can inject puffing-billy [2] into the mix: this is a proxy that will allow you to mock XHR queries without touching the javascript libraries. This allows to write full integration specs for scenarios involving libraries like Stripe/Recurly.js etc, but using mocked calls.
[1] https://github.com/teampoltergeist/poltergeist
Re: Capybara: Acceptance test framework for web applications
#14Re: Capybara: Acceptance test framework for web applications
#15If you use Capybara, a couple of useful notes, based on what I learned implementing js-enabled &headless specs for my SaaS [3]: First, using the poltergeist driver [1] which is PhantomJS based will tend to be faster AND raise errors when a javascript error occurs (unlike capybara-webkit), which is really handy if your app has a bit of javascript. Also, you can inject puffing-billy [2] into the mix: this is a proxy th…
I recommend using the built-in Rack Test for tests that don't require Javascript, and Poltergeist for tests that do. That is the fastest configuration.
Re: Capybara: Acceptance test framework for web applications
#16Sigh - more ruby rubbish. There are much cleaner and better and frankly less 'magic' tools available. Find them, use them, say no to ruby!
Cool story, bro.
Re: Capybara: Acceptance test framework for web applications
#17I think that your ultimate goal is to rely on Capybara for your testing as little as cleverly possible. Push all your logic into separately-unit-testable JS, perhaps use a DOM emulator, anything to get away from slow, barely-deterministic full browser Capybara testing.
Re: Capybara: Acceptance test framework for web applications
#18If you use Capybara, a couple of useful notes, based on what I learned implementing js-enabled &headless specs for my SaaS [3]: First, using the poltergeist driver [1] which is PhantomJS based will tend to be faster AND raise errors when a javascript error occurs (unlike capybara-webkit), which is really handy if your app has a bit of javascript. Also, you can inject puffing-billy [2] into the mix: this is a proxy th…
I recommend using the built-in Rack Test for tests that don't require Javascript, and Poltergeist for tests that do. That is the fastest configuration.
Very good point. I do this when I can so my suit runs much faster.
Re: Capybara: Acceptance test framework for web applications
#19Capybara has been a part of my/our workflow for a while; I'm curious why this is on the frontpage -- is there a specific update I'm missing? Either way, I really enjoy Capybara -- especially being able to jump between different drivers for various reasons.
Things get upvoted for a lot of reasons, chief of which is getting tips from people who use the same tool, like the comment that tops the list right now.