3 ms·
Went through this recently and it's great. Bootstrap is a nice addition -- I know people complain about too many Bootstrap sites, but developing something that
by msluyter 15y ago
Went through this recently and it's great. Bootstrap is a nice addition -- I know people complain about too many Bootstrap sites, but developing something that looks good right off the bat is highly satisfying.
The only problem I ran into is that when using spork and guard, the test environment didn't always get reloaded (not sure if I recall the exact conditions in which that happened) and so I got some unexpected errors/test failures on occasion (resolved by restarting spork/guard). There's a stack overflow entry on this, iirc.
- kaonashi 15y agoThe thing I like most about using bootstrap together with less is just how easy it is to override the default styles. You can use bootstrap just to get something in the ballpark, and then just tweak it to get to something that's final.
- mhartl 15y agoThe Spork caveat is mentioned in the book (http://ruby.railstutorial.org/chapters/static-pages#code:rspec_drb http://ruby.railstutorial.org/chapters/static-pages#code:rsp...): One word of advice when using Spork: after changing a file included in the prefork loading (such as routes.rb), you will have to restart the Spork server to load the new Rails environment. If your tests are failing when you think they should be passing, quit the Spork server with Control-C and restart it. That doesn't mean you won't end up on Stack Overflow, though. I end up there all the time myself, and I wrote the damn thing.
- kiba 15y agoThat doesn't mean you won't end up on Stack Overflow, though. I end up there all the time myself, and I wrote the damn thing. If that was eliminated, than spork would be an absolute no brainer.