ruby-on-rails-3.2

Description of problem: - I've setup factory_girl_rails however whenever I try and load a factory it's trying to load it multiple times. Environment: - rails (3.2.1) - factory_girl (2.5.2) - factory_girl_rails (1.6.0) - ruby-1.9.3-p0 [ x86_64 ] > rake spec --trace ** Execute environment -- Creating User Factory -- Creating User Factory rake aborted! Factory already registered: user The only other thing I've changed is: /config/initializers/generator.rb Rails.application.config.generators do |g| g.test_framework = :rspec g.fixture_replacement :factory_girl end GEMFILE gem 'rails', '3.2.1' #

I have a Rails Engine meant to provide some models and controllers to a larger project of ours. There's a pretty decent set of specs for the Engine, using a bunch of mocks and some full-scale models and controllers within the engine's dummy app to make sure the Engine is doing what it's supposed to and working with the larger application. However, even with all tests passing, I frequently find broken behavior when I update the engine in the larger application. If my tests are passing but the behavior is broken, clearly something's wrong with the tests, but what? Am I mocking too much, or not

In the past, whenever I wanted to update a part of my view through Ajax, I've done the following: create a partial out of the part I want to update and give it a unique ID, say #tracks create a special action in the controller for that Ajax call, say remove_track that updates all the values, etc. and add format.js create a new JS file with the same name as the action so Rails calls it automatically remove_track.js.erb which contains something like: $('#tracks').html("<%=j render 'cds/show_tracks' %>"); set remote: true in the link that calls this action. All this is fine, but now I am trying

I have a ActiveRecord query for example like this: @result = stuff.limit(10) where stuff is a active record query with where clauses, order by, etc... Now I thought why to pass magic numbers like that to the controller? So do you think is it a good practice to define a scope for "limit(10)" and use that instead? and how would the syntax look like? The scope would look like any other (although you may prefer a class method), e.g., class Stuff < ActiveRecord::Base def self.lim limit(3) end end > Stuff.lim.all => [#<Stuff id: 1, name: "foo", created_at: "2013-03-01 17:58:32", updated_at: "2013-03

I've recently upgraded my Rails to v3.2. The server starts and works, however I'm noticing the following warning: Rack::File headers parameter replaces cache_control after Rack 1.5. In my development.rb I have the following configuration for cache control: config.static_cache_control = "public, max-age=36000" What does the warning mean and what should I do to address it? The warning is caused by a call from within Rails itself . The warning has been fixed in Rails 3.2.13 . You have to upgrade Rake file. This issue occurred in Rails 3.2.12 but solved in Rails 3.2.13 to solve this issue. You