shaun at shaunmcdonald.me.uk
Mon Sep 3 13:11:14 BST 2012
On 31 Aug 2012, at 18:00, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 August 2012 14:46, Tom MacWright <tom at macwright.org> wrote:
>> Downvote to HAML. It's totally unknown outside of ruby-land and would
>> significantly cut down on the number of possible contributors to the theme
>> layer, nixing the two or three people I know who are working on patches.
> Anything that reduces the pool contributors is, in my eyes, a bad
> thing. I guess the advantage of erb is that it's more similar to e.g.
> php or asp templating?
Yup erb is very similar to php and asp templating. However it is more difficult to read compared to haml, and others who have started using haml have picked it up really quickly. As all of the setup is part of the rails setup, I do see the barrier to be relatively minor.
> Do you have any suggestions for 'erb standards' that we could use to
> improve the readability of our erb templates? I can't put my finger on
> it, but they normally seem a mess and are hard to check for missing
> close tags, out-of-paragraph text, etc.
That's why people use haml instead.
>> Downvote to selenium; MapBox used it on TileMill and it was a headache in
>> every way - setup, maintenance, false-positives (and negatives). The
>> interface level of OSM is not large enough nor complex enough to warrant
>> that kind of testing - it's more important to get the Rails-level tests
>> working well.
> Sounds like we're all agreed on selenium then!
Yup basic functionality tests are more important. Interface or browser things will be picked up quick enough.
More information about the rails-dev