Could you rewrite this test to describe the behaviour as observed by a LB user - i.e. Color is available via REST - instead of describing the implementation details?

Something along these lines:

app.use(loopback.rest());
request(app).get('/colors').expect(404, function(err, res) {
  if (err) return done(err);
  var Color = db.createModel('color', {name: String});
  app.model(Color);
  request(app).get('/colors').expect(200, done);
});

Hmm, I have not realised the patch had already landed. Never mind, this is not critical, the test can stay as it is.

I could rewrite the test, no problem. Then maybe you guys could merge it
again.

What do you think?

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Miroslav Bajtoš notifications@github.com
wrote:

In test/app.test.js:

@@ -29,6 +29,14 @@ describe('app', function() {
expect(app.remotes().exports).to.eql({ color: Color });
});

• it('clears handler cache', function() {

•  var originalRestHandler = app.handler('rest');
  

•  var Color = db.createModel('color', {name: String});
  

•  app.model(Color);
  

•  var newRestHandler = app.handler('rest');
  

•  expect(originalRestHandler).to.not.equal(newRestHandler);
  

• });

Hmm, I have not realised the patch had already landed. Never mind, this is
not critical, the test can stay as it is.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/193/files#r9861989
.

Guilherme Machado Cirne
gcirne@gmail.com

@gcirne Don't worry about that.

@bajtos has a good point. We are specifying (via the test) that calling app.model() results in a different handler. Ideally we would be able to rewrite the handler mechanism and this test should still pass.

@gcirne - feel free to submit a PR that rewrites the test. Not a priority IMO though.