[Nitro] Recent bug
nyarly at gmail.com
Mon Feb 26 21:05:15 EST 2007
On 2/26/07, Jonathan Buch <john at oxyliquit.de> wrote:
> > And here's the patch bundle.
> that's great!
> > Is there any plan to convert tests into specs? test2spec seems to be
> > retired from rspec...
> Too bad I don't have much experience with rspec. What I like about is:
> the ability to specify human readable text as context/spec. What I
> find a little weird: writing '@something.should_be_empty' instead of
> 'assert @something.empty?'. The test::unit form is less opaque (for me)
> than rspec, it 'looks and behaves' more like normal Ruby...
I got over that VERY quickly :) And this point that I saw made
recently is particularly cogent:
is a lot clearer in intent than
Also, having mocks built in is so nice. And string diffs. Oh, (and
you might have seen this one coming, given my rampage through Og)
rspec has such a cleaner architecture than Test::Unit. Extending
RSpec is a breeze - Test::Unit is a nightmare.
> That said, I'm ok with using rspec exclusively. When I get the chance
> (between organizing stuff for going to finland) I will read a little
> into rspec and try to learn by rspec'ifying my tc_controller_param stuff.
Their docco is very nicely laid out. And the whole thing is pretty
POLS. Only con that I see to rspec at all is that their devs are a
little religious about BDD.
I still want a runner that would produce skeleton classes and methods
based on specs (and possibly even specs from mocks...) but this would
apparently be against the RSpec Way - so it remains a project for a
> >> tc_store.rb is failing on my box now that I've pulled the repo. It
> >> looks like Og::Manager#store is returning nil, now? Some of my own Og
> >> based code is broken by this pull as well. If no one else is working
> >> on it right now, I'll continue to work on a fix.
> This change was done because of the store-leak problem. Though instead
> of .with_store I'd rather had liked to use .store(&block) instead of
> .with_store(&block) and make .get_store/.put_store private (only to be
> used by .store).
I saw that exchange. Honestly, get_store/put_store is easier to
test/spec, and more in keeping with the Ruby paradigm of close-on-done
blocks being a convenience. After all, if I really wanted to, I could
__send(:get_store)__. Lets not get fascist about it; this isn't Java
More information about the Nitro-general