http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/02/04/recreating-the-button.html

Please move quickly to the chamberlock as the effects of prolonged exposure to the button are not part of this test.

Interesting Things

The garbage collection bug we encountered on Monday has popped up in new places:

• Rspec version < 1.1.11 + Linux ruby 1.8.6 patchlevel > 114 = (small explosion)

• libxml version 0.5.4 (11 versions out of date) + Linux ruby 1.8.6 patchlevel > 114 = (another small explosion)

Also, speaking of libxml:

• ActsAsSolr was incompatible with more recent versions of libxml, but David has submitted a fix which has been incorporated into mattmatt's github fork.

Ask for Help

"Turning off cache-busting for test environment replaces cache-busting junk with ??. Is there a way to make it replace it with nothing instead?"

With cache busting on, you have would have to test like this:

 admin_button.should have_tag("a > img[src ='/images/v3/admin/image_name.png?12121212?']")

which is awkward.

We turned it off by adding the following to config/environments/test.rb (google said to do it)

 ENV['RAILS_ASSET_ID'] = ''

But, then we had to do this:

 admin_button.should have_tag("a > img[src ='/images/v3/admin/image_name.png??']")

Is there a way to turn off cache-busting that doesn't put weird/ugly question marks at the end of your image names?

"with_tag & have_tag don't work in non-controller (e.g. model) rspecs?"

Yes, they don't. Use Hpricot instead. Or maybe assert_elements.

Ask for Help

"Does anyone know about recent changes to Ruby 1.8.6 garbage collection?"

We're seeing a strange test failure on one of our CI boxes:

[BUG] object allocation during garbage collection phase ruby 1.8.6 (2008-08-11) [i686-linux]

ruby -v gives this:

ruby 1.8.6 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 287) [i686-linux]

On the developer's OSX machine, which doesn't experience this bug, ruby -v gives:

ruby 1.8.6 (2008-03-03 patchlevel 114) [universal-darwin9.0]

There have apparently been changes to garbage collection in 1.8.7 and 1.9 -- does anyone know if these have been backported to 1.8.6 somewhere between patchlevels 114 and 287?