NWRUG Google Group

Next ThoughtWorks Geek Night: Usability Testing, Thu Oct 23

2008-10-10T12:59:35Z

By popular demand, our next session will be about usability testing
and designing for usability, with Luke Barrett, a senior BA who
focuses on user interaction and interface design. We've had a couple
of requests for this one, and last time out we voted usability as the
most important quality of our software but one that we're not so

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want?

2008-10-10T10:54:00Z

Only if it fails silently; in that case it's a framework bug and, I
would submit, inadmissible evidence m'lud. It ought to fail very
loudly (and does in MySql with a ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid :
Mysql::Error). I'd describe that as highlighting rather than hiding
the problem.
----------------

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want?

2008-10-10T09:55:03Z

Well, what if the db constraints are stopping orphans being created,
when the AR:B code would allow it?
That is hiding a problem in the AR:B that should be caught, right?
Now, THAT would be really good.
If we had the constraints being generated from the models, AND AR:B
trapping constraint violations and reporting

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want?

2008-10-10T09:48:02Z

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Paul Wilson <
+1 - said much better and more coherently than I could have done.

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want?

2008-10-10T09:43:03Z

Hi NWRUG,
Really? I'd have thought the exact opposite: constraints can
highlight problems in the domain(/model) layer - failing early rather
than allowing data integrity issues. The constraints are duplication,
but duplication with _some_ value. Rather like double-entry book
keeping - a mistake on one side is caught by the duplication on the

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want?

2008-10-10T07:27:58Z

Ashley, thanks for taking the time to answer so comprehensively. :-)
Yes, and I acknowledge that I do tend to get a bit dogmatic about DRY.
Fair point.
Your point regarding the ORM being at fault is a very good one, if you
feel that constraints should
be placed in the DB layer.
Regarding when you came a cropper, isn't that what testing is for? Or

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want?

2008-10-09T18:02:07Z

This is a problem caused by the ActiveRecord pattern, which mixes
business logic and persistence. If these were separated it'd be much
easier to spec the two independently.
DataMapper sadly (and ironically, given its name) is no better in this
regard. My current app is using DataMapper in a limited sense, and I

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want?

2008-10-09T17:52:41Z

Peter,
If that's happening, it's a fault of the ORM - presumably
ActiveRecord. If it's making the assumption that a save is successful
that's a BUG, and bugs are not justifications of workarounds.
I've been bitten far worse where lack of constraints has meant an
apparently simple bulk data insert crippled an application, which

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want? - creative commons

2008-10-09T11:17:20Z

For your info. The new course at Skillsmatter is a TDD rails course.
They've been doing training in rails for a while now, trainers like
David Black, Tom Locke and myself have been doing it.
-- Jamie van Dyke
-- Parfait

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want? - creative commons

2008-10-09T11:07:22Z

Read this:
[link]
End of argument.
The problem today isn't getting paid: it's being noticed in the first
place. If I give you 5-6 days of training for free, have I lost money?
You probably wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so in fact I've just

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want?

2008-10-09T10:57:14Z

I think once people see TDD or BDD and you explain that by writing
tests first you ensure higher quality code, they "get it". I know I
did, but it took a while for me to start actually doing it because I
was ingrained into thinking testing was something done after
development but before delivery by a human being.

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want? - creative commons

2008-10-09T10:53:24Z

Well, I'm preparing my own materials because decent materials don't
currently exist - even AWDwR teaches TDD as an afterthought. However,
I will be borrowing heavily from inspiration found in various books
and materials already there. I imagine the first Rails app people will
be building will be a shopping cart, for example... :-)

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want? - creative commons

2008-10-09T10:46:02Z

Anything I do will be released under as open a license as possible. I
don't even care about attribution to be honest.
Yeah, the idea is to eventually run a few training courses a year in
the UK, but I've yet to look at the detail of how commercially viable
it is.

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want?

2008-10-09T08:01:13Z

Yeah, just always use #destroy & .destroy_all, etc., instead of their delete
counterparts.
2008/10/9 Francis Fish <francis.f...@gmail.com>

Re: [NWRUG] Re: Rails training - what would you want?

2008-10-09T07:52:17Z

I'll have to check documentation, but I *think* that using delete_all (by id
and very efficient) may not destroy children even if you've told the model
to. This could lead to a pernicious bug where the tests work but the running
app does not express your intentions correctly. Rpec would check that
delete_all was being called, but not catch that it was the wrong method to