Also interested, I've tried similar things with watir webdriver and a xvfb/headless mode but the only real 'solutions' I've come across are time-outs. Needless to say it could've been heaps better.
I didn't do much testing since PhantomJS 2.0 but I know that in the past, it was recommended to reload PhantomJS every +/- 50 pages to free the leaked memory.
Ooh, I don't remember frankly, it's almost 2 years ago now. I can admit it now - I run it on my school's network that has about 50 computers. I would say I switched computers about 10 times.
I am not sure if it was anti-spam or anti-ddos or just anti-scraper measure.
There has been a lot of strong anti-immigrant/foreigner sentiment floating around recently in the media. This one was actually predicted to be closer to a 50/50 vote.
Frankly the proposal was very harsh and I think a lot of people saw through the other tactics it employed to garner favour. Switzerland is a cultural melting pot and a lot of people can relate negatively to the consequences of this proposal. I believe Cheap labour was not on many minds. This proposal seems to be the result of a very vocal minority and does not address real problems of a majority.
As for why I voted against it, good intentions. Keep in mind this is a single data point from a Swiss who has lived in Japan most of their lives.
Wardriving is also the first thing I thought off (Wigle also being my app of choice). Massive co-ordinated wardriving. I can't help but feel that this is a bad idea.
It does. Especially considering the fact that RSpec itself was created as a joke solution to the "I wish my tests were more human readable" meme several years ago. Hopefully that sheds some light on why some of us might be hyper-sensitive about it.
I created RSpec (in early 2005) to draw people's attention away from the word "test" because it was a huge hangup while I was teaching TDD. I kept hearing "You can't test something that doesn't exist, therefore your entire idea is bunk." I wanted to introduce TDD to people without ever using the word "test", and then switch them to using xUnit instead.
Not a joke, but I guess you could reasonably describe RSpec as a tool for performing a good old fashioned bait and switch. In a classroom. (I never intended for it to be used outside of a classroom setting.)
Around the time I was looking for ways to "teach TDD without using the word", Aslak Hellesøy introduced me to Dan North's ideas of Behaviour Driven Development. That's where the word "should" came from. I don't know if it was actually Aslak or Dan (or possibly even Liz Keogh) that first used the word "should", but that wasn't my idea.
Also, I'll point out that mixing #should onto Object wasn't my fault. The original syntax looked very close to the expect().to() syntax of today. It was actually assert(foo).does_equal(bar) at one point, and this was the syntax I was most fond of. I tried dozens of different combinations. "#should" was one of many, and I didn't like it. It got released this way because I was talked into it after that variant was demonstrated (by someone else) to a positive audience.
People liked it. RSpec took off. Whoops.
I later said on twitter, jokingly, that RSpec was a huge troll. That was kind of a joke on a joke. RSpec wasn't a joke, but I didn't build it for actual use. That was a happy accident. That said, it's a great tool these days, if a bit heavy. And it has certainly served my original wish of teaching many people TDD very well.
My $0.02 on the "maybe" syntax: if you need this, I suspect your problems are a lot larger than whether or not an assertion will pass or fail. It's symptom solving.
Thank you for this. It's nice to have it straight from the horses mouth instead of the many different types of RSpec folklore I've heard about its origin.
alex here. After getting a question correct, you can submit the same POST request with the same answer, and a very large negative number for the time. I imagine they're just adding your newly calculated score (30?-time) to your session's previous score. A lesson in sanitising inputs!
